__________________________________________________________________

           Title: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and
                  Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600
      Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
     Print Basis: Fifth edition, revised
   CCEL Subjects: All; History; Proofed;
      LC Call no: BR145.S3
     LC Subjects:

                  Christianity

                  History
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    HISTORY

                                     of the

                              CHRISTIAN CHURCH [1]

by

PHILIP SCHAFF

    Christianus sum.        Christiani nihil a me alienum puto

VOLUME III

NICENE AND POST-NICENE CHRISTIANITY

  From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great

  a.d. 311-600.

    This is a reproduction of the Fifth Edition, Revised
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA:
   Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. The material has been carefully
   compared and corrected according to the Eerdmans reproduction of the
   1910 edition by Charles Scribner's sons, with emendations by The
   Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.
     __________________________________________________________________

   PREFACE TO THE THIRD REVISION

   This third volume covers the eventful period of Christian emperors,
   patriarchs, and ecumenical Councils, from Constantine the Great to
   Gregory the Great. It completes the History of Ancient Christianity,
   which is the common inheritance of Greek, Latin, and Evangelical
   Christendom.

   The first edition was published in 1867, and has not undergone any
   important changes. But in the revision of 1884 the more recent
   literature was added in an Appendix.

   In this edition the Appendix has been revised and enriched with the
   latest literature. A few changes have also been made in the text to
   conform it to the present state of research (e.g., pp. 29, 353, 688,
   689).

   The Author.

   New York, July, 1889.
     __________________________________________________________________

   PREFACE

   With sincere thanks to God for continued health and strength, I offer
   to the public a history of the eventful period of the Church from the
   beginning of the fourth century to the close of the sixth. This
   concludes my history of Ancient Christianity.

   It was intended at first to condense the third period into one volume,
   but regard to symmetry made it necessary to divide it into two volumes
   of equal size with the first which appeared several years ago. This
   accounts for the continuous paging of the second and third volumes.

   In preparing this part of my Church History for the press, I have been
   deprived of the stimulus of an active professorship, and been much
   interrupted in consequence of other labors, a visit to Europe, and the
   loss of a part of the manuscript, which had to be rewritten. But, on
   the other hand, I have had the great advantage of constant and free
   access to several of the best libraries of the country. Especially am I
   indebted to the Astor Library, and the Union Theological Seminary
   Library of New York, which are provided with complete sets of the Greek
   and Latin fathers, and nearly all other important sources of the
   history of the first six centuries.

   I have used different editions of the fathers (generally the
   Benedictine), but these I have carefully indicated when they vary in
   the division of chapters and sections, or in the numbering of orations
   and epistles, as in the works of Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome,
   Augustine, and Leo. In addition to the primary sources, I have
   constantly consulted the later historians, German, French, and English.

   In the progress of the work I have been filled with growing admiration
   for the great scholars of the seventeenth and early part of the
   eighteenth century, who have with amazing industry and patience
   collected the raw material from the quarries, and investigated every
   nook and corner of Christian Antiquity. I need only refer to the
   Benedictine editors of the fathers; to the Bollandists, in the
   department of hagiography; to Mansi and Hardouin, in the collection of
   the Acts of Councils; to Gallandi, Dupin, Ceillier, Oudin, Cave,
   Fabricius, in patristics and literary history; to Petau's Theologica
   dogmata, Tillemont's Mémoires, Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae,
   Bingham's Antiquities, Walch's Ketzerhistorie. In learning, acumen,
   judgment, and reverent spirit, these and similar works are fully equal,
   if not superior, to the best productions of the modern Teutonic press;
   while we cheerfully concede to the latter the superiority in critical
   sifting, philosophical grasp, artistic reproduction of the material,
   and in impartiality and freedom of spirit, without which there can be
   no true history. Thus times and talents supplement each other.

   With all due regard for the labors of distinguished predecessors and
   contemporaries, I have endeavored, to the best of my ability, to
   combine fulness of matter with condensation in form and clearness of
   style, and to present a truthful and lively picture of the age of
   Christian emperors, patriarchs, and ecumenical Councils. Whether, and
   how far, I have succeeded in this, competent judges will decide.

   I must again express my profound obligation to my friend, the Rev. Dr.
   Yeomans, of Rochester, for his invaluable assistance in bringing these
   volumes before the public in a far better English dress than I could
   have given them myself. I have prepared the work in German, and have
   sent the copy to Leipsic, where a German edition will appear
   simultaneously with the American. Some portions I have myself
   reproduced in English, and have made considerable additions throughout
   in the final revision of the copy for the press. But the body of the
   work has been translated from manuscript by Dr. Yeomans. He has
   performed his task with that consummate union of faithfulness and
   freedom which does full justice both to the thought of the author and
   the language of the reader, and which has elicited the unqualified
   praise of the best judges for his translation of my History of the
   Apostolic Church, and that of the first three centuries.

   The work has been, for the translator as well as for the author, truly
   a labor of love, which carries in it its own exceeding great reward.
   For what can be more delightful and profitable than to revive for the
   benefit of the living generation, the memory of those great and good
   men who were God's own chosen instruments in expounding the mysteries
   of divine truth, and in spreading the blessings of Christianity over
   the face of the earth?

   It is my wish and purpose to resume this work as soon as other
   engagements will permit, and to complete it according to the original
   plan. In the mean time I have the satisfaction of having finished the
   first great division of the history of Christianity, which, in many
   respects, is the most important, as the common inheritance of the
   Greek, Latin, and Evangelical churches. May God bless it as a means to
   promote the cause of truth, and to kindle that devotion to his service
   which is perfect freedom.

   Philip Schaff.

   5 Bible House, New York, Nov. 8, 1866.
     __________________________________________________________________

   THIRD PERIOD

   FROM CONSTANTINE THE GREAT TO GREGORY THE GREAT.

   a. d. 311-590.

   SOURCES.

   I. Christian Sources: (a) The Acts Of Councils; in the Collectiones
   conciliorum of Hardouin, Par. 1715 sqq. 12 vols. fol.; Mansi, Flor. et
   Ven. 1759 sqq. 31 vols. fol.; Fuchs: Bibliothek der
   Kirchenversammlungen des 4ten und 5ten Jahrh. Leipz. 1780 sqq.; and
   Bruns: Biblioth. eccl. vol. i. Canones Apost. et Conc. saec. iv.-vii.
   Berol. 1839.

   (b) The Imperial Laws and Decrees referring to the church, in the Codex
   Theodosianus, collected a.d. 438, the Codex Justinianeus, collected in
   529, and the Cod. repetitae praelectionis of 534.

   (c) The Official Letters of popes (in the Bullarium Romanum),
   patriarchs, and bishops.

   (d) The writings of all the Church Fathers from the beginning of the
   4th century to the end of the 6th. Especially of Eusebius, Athanasius,
   Basil, the two Gregories, the two Cyrils, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, of
   the Greek church; and Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Leo the Great, of
   the Latin. Comp. the Benedictine Editions of the several Fathers; the
   Maxima Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, Lugd. 1677 sqq. (in all 27 vols.
   fol.), vols. iii.-xi.; Gallandi: Biblioth. vet. Patrum, etc. Ven. 1765
   sqq. (14 vols. fol.), vols. iv.-xii.

   (e) Contemporary Church Historians, (1) of the Greek church: Eusebius
   of Caesarea ( about 340): the ninth and tenth books of his H. E. down
   to 324, and his biography of Constantine the Great, see § 2 infra;
   Socrates Scholasticus of Constantinople: Histor. ecclesiast. libri vii,
   a.d. 306-439; Hermias Sozomen of Constantinople: H. eccl. l. ix, a.d.
   323-423; Theodoret, bishop of Cyros in Mesopotamia: H. eccl. l. v, a.d.
   325-429; the Arian Philostorgius: H. eccl. l. xii, a.d. 318-425, extant
   only in extracts in Photius Cod. 40; Theodorus Lector, of
   Constantinople, epitomizer of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret,
   continuing the latter down to 518, preserved in fragments by Nicephorus
   Callistus; Evagrius of Antioch: H. eccl. l. vi, a.d. 431-594;
   Nicephorus Callistus (or Niceph. Callisti), about 1330, author of a
   church history in 23 books, to a.d. 911 (ed. Fronto Ducaeus, Par.
   1630). The historical works of these Greek writers, excepting the last,
   are also published together under the title: Historiae ecclesiasticae
   Scriptores, etc., Graec. et Lat., with notes by H. Valesius (and G.
   Reading), Par. 1659-1673; and Cantabr. 1720, 3 vols. fol. (2) Of the
   Latin church historians few are important: Rufinus, presb. of Aquileia
   (410), translated Eusebius and continued him in two more books to 395;
   Sulpicius Severus, presb. in Gaul: Hist. Sacra, l. ii, from the
   creation to a.d. 400; Paulus Orosius, presbyter in Spain: Historiarum
   libri vii. written about 416, extending from the creation to his own
   time; Cassiodorus, about 550: Hist. tripartite, l. xii. a mere extract
   from the works of the Greek church historians, but, with the work of
   Rufinus, the chief source of historical knowledge through the whole
   middle age; and Jerome ( 419): De viris illustrious, or Catalogus
   scriptorum eccles., written about 392, continued under the same title
   by Gennadius, about 495, and by Isidor of Seville, about 630.

   (f) For chronology, the Greek Paschalion, or Chronicon Paschale
   (wrongly called Alexandrinum), primarily a table of the passovers from
   the beginning of the world to a.d. 354 under Constantius, with later
   additions down to 628. (Ed. Car. du Fresne Dom. du Cange. Par. 1688,
   and L. Dindorf, Bonn. 1832, 2 vols.) The Chronicle of Eusebius and
   Jerome (Chronika sungrammata, pantodape historia), containing an
   outline of universal history down to 325, mainly after the chronography
   of Julius Africanus, and an extract from the universal chronicle in
   tabular form down to 379, long extant only in the free Latin
   translation and continuation of Jerome (ed. Jos. Scaliger. Lugd. Batav.
   1606 and later), since 1792 known also in an Armenian translation (ed.
   J. Bapt. Aucher. Ven. 1818, and Aug. Mai, Script. vet. nov. coll. 1833.
   Tom. viii). In continuation of the Latin chronicle of Jerome, the
   chronicle of Prosper of Aquitania down to 455; that of the spanish
   bishop Idatius, to 469; and that of Marcellinus Comes, to 534. Comp.
   Chronica medii aevi post Euseb. atque Hieron., etc. ed. Roesler, Tüb.
   1798.

   II. Heathen Sources: Ammianus Marcellinus (officer under Julian, honest
   and impartial): Rerum gestarum libri xiv-xxxi, a.d. 353-378 (the first
   13 books are lost), ed. Jac. Gronov. Lugd. Batav. 1693 fol., and J. A.
   Ernesti, Lips. 1778 and 1835. Eunapius (philosopher and historian;
   bitter against the Christian emperors): Chronike historia, a.d.
   268-405, extant only in fragments, ed. Bekker and Niebuhr, Bonn. 1829.
   Zosimus (court officer under Theodosius II., likewise biassed):
   Historia nea, l. vi, a.d. 284-410, ed. Cellarius 1679, Reitemeier 1784,
   and Imm. Bekker, Bonn. 1837. Also the writings of Julian the Apostate
   (against Christianity), Libanius and Symmachus (philosophically
   tolerant), &c. Comp. the literature at § 2 and 4.
     __________________________________________________________________

   LATER LITERATURE.

   Besides the contemporary histories named above under 1 (e) among the
   sources, we should mention particularly Baronius (R.C. of the
   a.d.Ultramontane school, 1607): Annales Eccles. vol. iii.-viii. (a
   heavy and unreadable chronicle, but valuable for reference to original
   documents). Tillemont (R.C. leaning to Jansenism, 1698): Mémoires,
   etc., vol. vi.-xvi. (mostly biographical, minute, and conscientious).
   Gibbon ( 1794): Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, from ch. xvii.
   onward (unsurpassed in the skilful use of sources and artistic
   composition, but skeptical and destitute of sympathy with the genius of
   Christianity). Schröckh (moderate Lutheran, 1808): Christl.
   Kirchengesch. Theil v.-xviii. (A simple and diffuse, but thorough and
   trustworthy narrative). Neander (Evangel. 1850): Allg. Gesch. der Chr.
   Rel. und Kirche. Hamb. vol. iv.-vi., 2d ed. 1846 sqq. Engl. transl. by
   Torrey, vol. ii. (Profound and genial in the genetic development of
   Christian doctrine and life, but defective in the political and
   aesthetic sections, and prolix and careless in style and arrangement).
   Gieseler (Protest. 1854): Kirchengesch. Bonn. i. 2. 2d ed. 1845. Engl.
   transl. by Davidson, and revised by H. B. Smith, N. York, vol. i. and
   ii. (Critical and reliable in the notes, but meagre, dry, and cold in
   the text).

   Isaac Taylor (Independent): Ancient Christianity, and the Doctrines of
   the Oxf. Tracts for the Times. Lond. 4th ed. 1844. 2 vols.
   (Anti-Puseyite). Böhringer (G. Ref.): Kirchengeschichte in
   Biographieen, vol. i. parts 3 and 4. Zür. 1845 sq. (from Ambrose to
   Gregory the Great). Carwithen And Lyall: History of the Christian
   Church from the 4th to the 12th Cent. in the Encycl. Metrop. 1849;
   published separately in Lond. and Glasg. 1856. J. C. Robertson (Angl.):
   Hist. of the Christ. Church to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great.
   Lond. 1854 (pp. 166-516). H. H. Milman (Angl.): History of Christianity
   from the Birth of Christ to the abolition of Paganism in the Roman
   Empire. Lond. 1840 (New York, 1844), Book III. and IV. Milman: Hist. of
   Latin Christianity; including that of the Popes to the Pontificate of
   Nicholas V. Lond. 1854 sqq. 6 vols., republished in New York, 1860, in
   8 vols. (vol. i. a resumé of the first six centuries to Gregory I., the
   remaining vols. devoted to the middle ages). K. R. Hagenbach (G.
   Ref.):Die Christl. Kirche vom 4ten his 6ten Jahrh. Leipz. 1855 (2d vol.
   of his popular "Vorlesungen über die ältere Kirchengesch."). Albert de
   Broglie (R.C.): L'église et l'empire romain au IVme siècle. Par.
   1855-'66. 6 vols. Ferd. Christ. Baur: Die Christl. Kirche vom Anfang
   des vierten bis zum Ende des sechsten Jahrhunderts in den Hauptmomenten
   ihrer Entwicklung. Tüb. 1859 (critical and philosophical). Wm. Bright:
   A History of the Church from the Edict of Milan, a.d. 313, to the
   Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. Oxf. and Lond. 1860. Arthur P. Stanley:
   Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church. Lond. 1861 (pp. 512),
   republished in New York from the 2d Lond. ed. 1862 (a series of graphic
   pictures of prominent characters and events in the history of the Greek
   and Russian church, but no complete history).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 1. Introduction and General View.

   From the Christianity of the Apostles and Martyrs we proceed to the
   Christianity of the Patriarchs and Emperors.

   The third period of the history of the Church, which forms the subject
   of this volume, extends from the emperor Constantine to the pope
   Gregory I.; from the beginning of the fourth century to the close of
   the sixth. During this period Christianity still moves, as in the first
   three centuries, upon the geographical scene of the Graeco-Roman empire
   and the ancient classical culture, the countries around the
   Mediterranean Sea. But its field and its operation are materially
   enlarged, and even touch the barbarians on the limit of the empire.
   Above all, its relation to the temporal power, and its social and
   political position and import, undergo an entire and permanent change.
   We have here to do with the church of the Graeco-Roman empire, and with
   the beginning of Christianity among the Germanic barbarians. Let us
   glance first at the general character and leading events of this
   important period.

   The reign of Constantine the Great marks the transition of the
   Christian religion from under persecution by the secular government to
   union with the same; the beginning of the state-church system. The
   Graeco-Roman heathenism, the most cultivated and powerful form of
   idolatry, which history knows, surrenders, after three hundred years'
   struggle, to Christianity, and dies of incurable consumption, with the
   confession: Galilean, thou hast conquered! The ruler of the civilized
   world lays his crown at the feet of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth.
   The successor of Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian appears in the imperial
   purple at the council of Nice as protector of the church, and takes his
   golden throne at the nod of bishops, who still bear the scars of
   persecution. The despised sect, which, like its Founder in the days of
   His humiliation, had not where to lay its head, is raised to sovereign
   authority in the state, enters into the prerogatives of the pagan
   priesthood, grows rich and powerful, builds countless churches out of
   the stones of idol temples to the honor of Christ and his martyrs,
   employs the wisdom of Greece and Rome to vindicate the foolishness of
   the cross, exerts a molding power upon civil legislation, rules the
   national life, and leads off the history of the world. But at the same
   time the church, embracing the mass of the population of the empire,
   from the Caesar to the meanest slave, and living amidst all its
   institutions, received into her bosom vast deposits of foreign material
   from the world and from heathenism, exposing herself to new dangers and
   imposing upon herself new and heavy labors.

   The union of church and state extends its influence, now healthful, now
   baneful, into every department of our history.

   The Christian life of the Nicene and post-Nicene age reveals a mass of
   worldliness within the church; an entire abatement of chiliasm with its
   longing after the return of Christ and his glorious reign, and in its
   stead an easy repose in the present order of things; with a sublime
   enthusiasm, on the other hand, for the renunciation of self and the
   world, particularly in the hermitage and the cloister, and with some of
   the noblest heroes of Christian holiness.

   Monasticism, in pursuance of the ascetic tendencies of the previous
   period, and in opposition to the prevailing secularization of
   Christianity, sought to save the virgin purity of the church and the
   glory of martyrdom by retreat from the world into the wilderness; and
   it carried the ascetic principle to the summit of moral heroism, though
   not rarely to the borders of fanaticism and brutish stupefaction. It
   spread with incredible rapidity and irresistible fascination from Egypt
   over the whole church, east and west, and received the sanction of the
   greatest church teachers, of an Athanasius, a Basil, a Chrysostom, an
   Augustine, a Jerome, as the surest and shortest way to heaven.

   It soon became a powerful rival of the priesthood, and formed a third
   order, between the priesthood and the laity. The more extraordinary and
   eccentric the religion of the anchorets and monks, the more they were
   venerated among the people. The whole conception of the Christian life
   from the fourth to the sixteenth century is pervaded with the ascetic
   and monastic spirit, and pays the highest admiration to the voluntary
   celibacy, poverty, absolute obedience, and excessive self-punishments
   of the pillar-saints and the martyrs of the desert; while in the same
   degree the modest virtues of every-day household and social life are
   looked upon as an inferior degree of morality.

   In this point the old Catholic ethical ideas essentially differ from
   those of evangelical Protestantism and modern civilization. But, to
   understand and appreciate them, we must consider them in connection
   with the corrupt social condition of the rapidly decaying empire of
   Rome. The Christian spirit in that age, in just its most earnest and
   vigorous forms, felt compelled to assume in some measure an
   anti-social, seclusive character, and to prepare itself in the school
   of privation and solitude for the work of transforming the world and
   founding a new Christian order of society upon the ruins of the ancient
   heathenism.

   In the development of doctrine the Nicene and post-Nicene age is second
   in productiveness and importance only to those of the apostles and of
   the reformation. It is the classical period for the objective
   fundamental dogmas, which constitute the ecumenical or old Catholic
   confession of faith. The Greek church produced the symbolical
   definition of the orthodox view of the holy Trinity and the person of
   Christ, while the Latin church made considerable advance with the
   anthropological and soteriological doctrines of sin and grace. The
   fourth and fifth centuries produced the greatest church fathers,
   Athanasius and Chrysostom in the East, Jerome and Augustine in the
   West. All learning and science now came into the service of the church,
   and all classes of society, from the emperor to the artisan, took the
   liveliest, even a passionate interest, in the theological
   controversies. Now, too, for the first time, could ecumenical councils
   be held, in which the church of the whole Roman empire was represented,
   and fixed its articles of faith in an authoritative way.

   Now also, however, the lines of orthodoxy were more and more strictly
   drawn; freedom of inquiry was restricted; and all as departure from the
   state-church system was met not only, as formerly, with spiritual
   weapons, but also with civil punishments. So early as the fourth
   century the dominant party, the orthodox as well as the heterodox, with
   help of the imperial authority practised deposition, confiscation, and
   banishment upon its opponents. It was but one step thence to the
   penalties of torture and death, which were ordained in the middle age,
   and even so lately as the middle of the seventeenth century, by
   state-church authority, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, and
   continue in many countries to this day, against religious dissenters of
   every kind as enemies to the prevailing order of things. Absolute
   freedom of religion and of worship is in fact logically impossible on
   the state-church system. It requires the separation of the spiritual
   and temporal powers. Yet, from the very beginning of political
   persecution, loud voices rise against it and in behalf of
   ecclesiastico-religious toleration; though the plea always comes from
   the oppressed party, which, as soon as it gains the power, is generally
   found, in lamentable inconsistency, imitating the violence of its
   former oppressors. The protest springs rather from the sense of
   personal injury, than from horror of the principle of persecution, or
   from any clear apprehension of the nature of the gospel and its
   significant words: "Put up thy sword into the sheath;" "My kingdom is
   not of this world."

   The organization of the church adapts itself to the political and
   geographical divisions of the empire. The powers of the hierarchy are
   enlarged, the bishops become leading officers of the state and acquire
   a controlling influence in civil and political affairs, though more or
   less at the expense of their spiritual dignity and independence,
   especially at the Byzantine court. The episcopal system passes on into
   the metropolitan and patriarchal. In the fifth century the patriarchs
   of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem stand at
   the head of Christendom. Among these Rome and Constantinople are the
   most powerful rivals, and the Roman patriarch already puts forth a
   claim to universal spiritual supremacy, which subsequently culminates
   in the mediaeval papacy, though limited to the West and resisted by the
   constant protest of the Greek church and of all non-Catholic sects. In
   addition to provincial synods we have now also general synods, but
   called by the emperors and more or less affected, though not
   controlled, by political influence.

   From the time of Constantine church discipline declines; the whole
   Roman world having become nominally Christian, and the host of
   hypocritical professors multiplying beyond all control. Yet the
   firmness of Ambrose with the emperor Theodosius shows, that noble
   instances of discipline are not altogether wanting.

   Worship appears greatly enriched and adorned; for art now comes into
   the service of the church. A Christian architecture, a Christian
   sculpture, a Christian painting, music, and poetry arise, favoring at
   once devotion and solemnity, and all sorts of superstition and empty
   display. The introduction of religious images succeeds only after long
   and violent opposition. The element of priesthood and of mystery is
   developed, but in connection with a superstitious reliance upon a
   certain magical operation of outward rites. Church festivals are
   multiplied and celebrated with great pomp; and not exclusively in honor
   of Christ, but in connection with an extravagant veneration of martyrs
   and saints, which borders on idolatry, and often reminds us of the
   heathen hero-worship not yet uprooted from the general mind. The
   multiplication and accumulation of religious ceremonies impressed the
   senses and the imagination, but prejudiced simplicity, spirituality,
   and fervor in the worship of God. Hence also the beginnings of reaction
   against ceremonialism and formalism.

   Notwithstanding the complete and sudden change of the social and
   political circumstances of the church, which meets us on the threshold
   of this period, we have still before us the natural, necessary
   continuation of the pre-Constantine church in its light and shade, and
   the gradual transition of the old Graeco-Roman Catholicism into the
   Germano-Roman Catholicism of the middle age.

   Our attention will now for the first time be turned in earnest, not
   only to Christianity in the Roman empire, but also to Christianity
   among the Germanic barbarians, who from East and North threaten the
   empire and the entire civilization of classic antiquity. The church
   prolonged, indeed, the existence of the Roman empire, gave it a new
   splendor and elevation, new strength and unity, as well as comfort in
   misfortune; but could not prevent its final dissolution, first in the
   West (a.d. 476), afterwards (1453) in the East. But she herself
   survived the storms of the great migration, brought the pagan invaders
   under the influence of Christianity, taught the barbarians the arts of
   peace, planted a higher civilization upon the ruins of the ancient
   world, and thus gave new proof of the indestructible, all-subduing
   energy of her life.

   In a minute history of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries we should
   mark the following subdivisions:

   1. The Constantinian and Athanasian, or the Nicene and Trinitarian age,
   from 311 to the second general council in 381, distinguished by the
   conversion of Constantine, the alliance of the empire with the church,
   and the great Arian and semi-Arian controversy concerning the Divinity
   of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

   2. The post-Nicene, or Christological and Augustinian age, extending to
   the fourth general council in 451, and including the Nestorian and
   Eutychian disputes on the person of Christ, and the Pelagian
   controversy on sin and grace.

   3. The age of Leo the Great (440-461), or the rise of the papal
   supremacy in the West, amidst the barbarian devastations which made an
   end to the western Roman empire in 476.

   4. The Justinian age (527-565), which exhibits the Byzantine
   state-church despotism at the height of its power, and at the beginning
   of its decline.

   5. The Gregorian age (590-604) forms the transition from the ancient
   Graeco-Roman to the mediaeval Romano-Germanic Christianity, and will be
   more properly included in the church history of the middle ages.
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER I.

   DOWNFALL OF HEATHENISM AND VICTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

   GENERAL LITERATURE.

   J. G. Hoffmann: Ruina Superstitionis Paganae. Vitemb. 1738. Tzschirner:
   Der Fall des Heidenthums. Leipz. 1829. A. Beugnot: Histoire de la
   destruction du paganisme en occident. Par. 1835. 2 vols. Et. Chastel
   (of Geneva): Histoire de la destruction du paganisme dans l'empire
   d'orient. Par. 1850. E. v. Lasaulx: Der Untergang des Hellenismus u.
   die Einziehung seiner Tempelgüter durch die christl. Kaiser. Münch.
   1854. F. Lübker: Der Fall des Heidenthums. Schwerin, 1856. Ch.
   Merivale: Conversion of The Roman Empire. New York, 1865.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 2. Constantine The Great. a.d. 306-337.

   1. Contemporary Sources: Lactantius ( 330): De mortibus persecutorum,
   cap. 18 sqq. Eusebius: Hist. Eccl. l. Ix. et x.; also his panegyric and
   very partial Vita Constantini, in 4 books (Eis ton bion tou makariou
   Konstantinou tou basileos) and his Panegyricus or De laudibus
   Constantini; in the editions of the hist. works of Euseb. by Valesius,
   Par. 1659-1673, Amstel. 1695, Cantabr. 1720; Zimmermann, Frcf. 1822;
   Heinichen, Lips. 1827-30; Burton, Oxon. 1838. Comp. the imperial
   documents in the Codex Theodos.l. xvi. also the Letters and Treatises
   of Athanasius ( 373), and on the heathen side the Panegyric of Nazarius
   at Rome (321) and the Caesars of Julian ( 363).

   2. Later sources: Socrates: Hist. Eccl. l. i. Sozomenus: H. E. l. i et
   ii. Zosimus (a heathen historian and court-officer, comes et advocatus
   fisci, under Theodosius II.): istoria nea, l. ii. ed. Bekker, Bonn.
   1837. Eusebius and Zosimus present the extremes of partiality for and
   against Constantine. A just estimate of his character must be formed
   from the facts admitted by both, and from the effect of his secular and
   ecclesiastical policy.

   3. Modern authorities. Mosheim: De reb. Christ. ante Const. M. etc.,
   last section (p. 958 sqq. In Murdock's Engl. transl., vol. ii. p.
   454-481). Nath. Lardner, in the second part of his great work on the
   Credibility of the Gospel History, see Works ed. by Kippis, Lond. 1838,
   vol. iv. p. 3-55. Abbé de Voisin: Dissertation critique sur la vision
   de Constantin. Par. 1774. Gibbon: l.c. chs. xiv. and xvii.-xxi. Fr.
   Gusta: Vita di Constantino il Grande. Foligno, 1786. Manso: Das Leben
   Constantins des Gr. Bresl. 1817. Hug (R.C.): Denkschrift zur
   Ehrenrettung Constant. Frieb. 1829. Heinichen: Excurs. in Eus. Vitam
   Const. 1830. Arendt (R.C.): Const. u. sein Verb. zum Christenthum. Tüb.
   (Quartalschrift) 1834. Milman: Hist. of Christianity, etc., 1840, book
   iii. ch. 1-4. Jacob Burckhardt: Die Zeit Const. des Gr. Bas. 1853.
   Albert de Broglie: L'église et l'empire romain au IVme siècle. Par.
   1856 (vols. i. and ii.). A. P. Stanley: Lectures on the Hist. of the
   Eastern Church, 1862, Lect. vi. p. 281 sqq. (Am. Ed.). Theod. Keim: Der
   Uebertritt Constantins des Gr. zum Christenthum. Zürich, 1862 (an
   apology for Constantine's character against Burckhardt's view).

   The last great imperial persecution of the Christians under Diocletian
   and Galerius, which was aimed at the entire uprooting of the new
   religion, ended with the edict of toleration of 311 and the tragical
   ruin of the persecutors. [2] The edict of toleration was an involuntary
   and irresistible concession of the incurable impotence of heathenism
   and the indestructible power of Christianity. It left but a step to the
   downfall of the one and the supremacy of the other in the empire of the
   Caesars.

   This great epoch is marked by the reign of Constantine I. [3] He
   understood the signs of the times and acted accordingly. He was the man
   for the times, as the times were prepared for him by that Providence
   which controls both and fits them for each other. He placed himself at
   the head of true progress, while his nephew, Julian the Apostate,
   opposed it and was left behind. He was the chief instrument for raising
   the church from the low estate of oppression and persecution to well
   deserved honor and power. For this service a thankful posterity has
   given him the surname of the Great, to which he was entitled, though
   not by his moral character, yet doubtless by his military and
   administrative ability, his judicious policy, his appreciation and
   protection of Christianity, and the far-reaching consequences of his
   reign. His greatness was not indeed of the first, but of the second
   order, and is to be measured more by what he did than by what he was.
   To the Greek church, which honors him even as a canonized saint, he has
   the same significance as Charlemagne to the Latin.

   Constantine, the first Christian Caesar, the founder of Constantinople
   and the Byzantine empire, and one of the most gifted, energetic, and
   successful of the Roman emperors, was the first representative of the
   imposing idea of a Christian theocracy, or of that system of policy
   which assumes all subjects to be Christians, connects civil and
   religious rights, and regards church and state as the two arms of one
   and the same divine government on earth. This idea was more fully
   developed by his successors, it animated the whole middle age, and is
   yet working under various forms in these latest times; though it has
   never been fully realized, whether in the Byzantine, the German, or the
   Russian empire, the Roman church-state, the Calvinistic republic of
   Geneva, or the early Puritanic colonies of New England. At the same
   time, however, Constantine stands also as the type of an
   undiscriminating and harmful conjunction of Christianity with politics,
   of the holy symbol of peace with the horrors of war, of the spiritual
   interests of the kingdom of heaven with the earthly interests of the
   state.

   In judging of this remarkable man and his reign, we must by all means
   keep to the great historical principle, that all representative
   characters act, consciously or unconsciously, as the free and
   responsible organs of the spirit of their age, which moulds them first
   before they can mould it in turn, and that the spirit of the age
   itself, whether good or bad or mixed, is but an instrument in the hands
   of divine Providence, which rules and overrules all the actions and
   motives of men.

   Through a history of three centuries Christianity had already inwardly
   overcome the world, and thus rendered such an outward revolution, as
   has attached itself to the name of this prince, both possible and
   unavoidable. It were extremely superficial to refer so thorough and
   momentous a change to the personal motives of an individual, be they
   motives of policy, of piety, or of superstition. But unquestionably
   every age produces and shapes its own organs, as its own purposes
   require. So in the case of Constantine. He was distinguished by that
   genuine political wisdom, which, putting itself at the head of the age,
   clearly saw that idolatry had outlived itself in the Roman empire, and
   that Christianity alone could breathe new vigor into it and furnish its
   moral support. Especially on the point of the external Catholic unity
   his monarchical politics accorded with the hierarchical episcopacy of
   the church. Hence from the year 313 he placed himself in close
   connection with the bishops, made peace and harmony his first object in
   the Donatist and Arian controversies and applied the predicate
   "catholic" to the church in all official documents. And as his
   predecessors were supreme pontiffs of the heathen religion of the
   empire, so he desired to be looked upon as a sort of bishop, as
   universal bishop of the external affairs of the church. [4] All this by
   no means from mere self-interest, but for the good of the empire,
   which, now shaken to its foundations and threatened by barbarians on
   every side, could only by some new bond of unity be consolidated and
   upheld until at least the seeds of Christianity and civilization should
   be planted among the barbarians themselves, the representatives of the
   future. His personal policy thus coincided with the interests of the
   state. Christianity appeared to him, as it proved in fact, the only
   efficient power for a political reformation of the empire, from which
   the ancient spirit of Rome was fast departing, while internal, civil,
   and religious dissensions and the outward pressure of the barbarians
   threatened a gradual dissolution of society.

   But with the political he united also a religious motive, not clear and
   deep, indeed, yet honest, and strongly infused with the superstitious
   disposition to judge of a religion by its outward success and to
   ascribe a magical virtue to signs and ceremonies. His whole family was
   swayed by religious sentiment, which manifested itself in very
   different forms, in the devout pilgrimages of Helena, the fanatical
   Arianism of Constantia, and Constantius, and the fanatical paganism of
   Julian. Constantine adopted Christianity first as a superstition, and
   put it by the side of his heathen superstition, till finally in his
   conviction the Christian vanquished the pagan, though without itself
   developing into a pure and enlightened faith. [5]

   At first Constantine, like his father, in the spirit of the
   Neo-Platonic syncretism of dying heathendom, reverenced all the gods as
   mysterious powers; especially Apollo, the god of the sun, to whom in
   the year 308 he presented munificent gifts. Nay, so late as the year
   321 he enjoined regular consultation of the soothsayers [6] in public
   misfortunes, according to ancient heathen usage; even later, he placed
   his new residence, Byzantium, under the protection of the God of the
   Martyrs and the heathen goddess of Fortune; [7] and down to the end of
   his life he retained the title and the dignity of a Pontifex Maximus,
   or high-priest of the heathen hierarchy. [8] His coins bore on the one
   side the letters of the name of Christ, on the other the figure of the
   Sun-god, and the inscription "Sol invictus." Of course these
   inconsistencies may be referred also to policy and accommodation to the
   toleration edict of 313. Nor is it difficult to adduce parallels of
   persons who, in passing from Judaism to Christianity, or from Romanism
   to Protestantism, have so wavered between their old and their new
   position that they might be claimed by both. With his every victory,
   over his pagan rivals, Galerius, Maxentius, and Licinius, his personal
   leaning to Christianity and his confidence in the magic power of the
   sign of the cross increased; yet he did not formally renounce
   heathenism, and did not receive baptism until, in 337, he was laid upon
   the bed of death.

   He had an imposing and winning person, and was compared by flatterers
   with Apollo. He was tall, broad-shouldered, handsome, and of a
   remarkably vigorous and healthy constitution, but given to excessive
   vanity in his dress and outward demeanor, always wearing an oriental
   diadem, a helmet studded with jewels, and a purple mantle of silk
   richly embroidered with pearls and flowers worked in gold, [9] His mind
   was not highly cultivated, but naturally clear, strong, and shrewd, and
   seldom thrown off its guard. He is said to have combined a cynical
   contempt of mankind with an inordinate love of praise. He possessed a
   good knowledge of human nature and administrative energy and tact.

   His moral character was not without noble traits, among which a
   chastity rare for the time, [10] and a liberality and beneficence
   bordering on wastefulness were prominent. Many of his laws and
   regulations breathed the spirit of Christian justice and humanity,
   promoted the elevation of the female sex, improved the condition of
   slaves and of unfortunates, and gave free play to the efficiency of the
   church throughout the whole empire. Altogether he was one of the best,
   the most fortunate, and the most influential of the Roman emperors,
   Christian and pagan.

   Yet he had great faults. He was far from being so pure and so venerable
   as Eusebius, blinded by his favor to the church, depicts him, in his
   bombastic and almost dishonestly eulogistic biography, with the evident
   intention of setting him up as a model for all future Christian
   princes. It must, with all regret, be conceded, that his progress in
   the knowledge of Christianity was not a progress in the practice of its
   virtues. His love of display and his prodigality, his suspiciousness
   and his despotism, increased with his power.

   The very brightest period of his reign is stained with gross crimes,
   which even the spirit of the age and the policy of an absolute monarch
   cannot excuse. After having reached, upon the bloody path of war, the
   goal of his ambition, the sole possession of the empire, yea, in the
   very year in which he summoned the great council of Nicaea, he ordered
   the execution of his conquered rival and brother-in-law, Licinius, in
   breach of a solemn promise of mercy (324). [11] Not satisfied with
   this, he caused soon afterwards, from political suspicion, the death of
   the young Licinius, his nephew, a boy of hardly eleven years. But the
   worst of all is the murder of his eldest son, Crispus, in 326, who had
   incurred suspicion of political conspiracy, and of adulterous and
   incestuous purposes towards his step-mother Fausta, but is generally
   regarded as innocent. This domestic and political tragedy emerged from
   a vortex of mutual suspicion and rivalry, and calls to mind the conduct
   of Philip II. towards Don Carlos, of Peter the Great towards his son
   Alexis, and of Soliman the Great towards his son Mustapha. Later
   authors assert, though gratuitously, that the emperor, like David,
   bitterly repented of this sin. He has been frequently charged besides,
   though it would seem altogether unjustly, with the death of his second
   wife Fausta (326?), who, after twenty years, of happy wedlock, is said
   to have been convicted of slandering her stepson Crispus, and of
   adultery with a slave or one of the imperial guards, and then to have
   been suffocated in the vapor of an over-heated bath. But the accounts
   of the cause and manner of her death are so late and discordant as to
   make Constantine's part in it at least very doubtful. [12]

   At all events Christianity did not produce in Constantine a thorough
   moral transformation. He was concerned more to advance the outward
   social position of the Christian religion, than to further its inward
   mission. He was praised and censured in turn by the Christians and
   Pagans, the Orthodox and the Arians, as they successively experienced
   his favor or dislike. He bears some resemblance to Peter the Great both
   in his public acts and his private character, by combining great
   virtues and merits with monstrous crimes, and he probably died with the
   same consolation as Peter, whose last words were: "I trust that in
   respect of the good I have striven to do my people (the church), God
   will pardon my sins." It is quite characteristic of his piety that he
   turned the sacred nails of the Saviour's cross which Helena brought
   from Jerusalem, the one into the bit of his war-horse, the other into
   an ornament of his helmet. Not a decided, pure, and consistent
   character, he stands on the line of transition between two ages and two
   religions; and his life bears plain marks of both. When at last on his
   death bed he submitted to baptism, with the remark, "Now let us cast
   away all duplicity," he honestly admitted the conflict of two
   antagonistic principles which swayed his private character and public
   life. [13]

   From these general remarks we turn to the leading features of
   Constantine's life and reign, so far as they bear upon the history of
   the church. We shall consider in order his youth and training, the
   vision of the Cross, the edict of toleration, his legislation in favor
   of Christianity, his baptism and death.

   Constantine, son of the co-emperor Constantius Chlorus, who reigned
   over Gaul, Spain, and Britain till his death in 306, was born probably
   in the year 272, either in Britain or at Naissus (now called Nissa), a
   town of Dardania, in Illyricum. [14] His mother was Helena, daughter of
   an innkeeper, [15] the first wife of Constantius, afterwards divorced,
   when Constantius, for political reasons, married a daughter of
   Maximian. [16] She is described by Christian writers as a discreet and
   devout woman, and has been honored with a place in the catalogue of
   saints. Her name is identified with the discovery of the cross and the
   pious superstitions of the holy places. She lived to a very advanced
   age and died in the year 326 or 327, in or near the city of Rome.
   Rising by her beauty and good fortune from obscurity to the splendor of
   the court, then meeting the fate of Josephine, but restored to imperial
   dignity by her son, and ending as a saint of the Catholic church:
   Helena would form an interesting subject for a historical novel
   illustrating the leading events of the Nicene age and the triumph of
   Christianity in the Roman empire.

   Constantine first distinguished himself in the service of Diocletian in
   the Egyptian and Persian wars; went afterwards to Gaul and Britain, and
   in the Praetorium at York was proclaimed emperor by his dying father
   and by the Roman troops. His father before him held a favorable opinion
   of the Christians as peaceable and honorable citizens, and protected
   them in the West during the Diocletian persecution in the East. This
   respectful tolerant regard descended to Constantine, and the good
   effects of it, compared with the evil results of the opposite course of
   his antagonist Galerius, could but encourage him to pursue it. He
   reasoned, as Eusebius reports from his own mouth, in the following
   manner: "My father revered the Christian God and uniformly prospered,
   while the emperors who worshipped the heathen gods, died a miserable
   death; therefore, that I may enjoy a happy life and reign, I will
   imitate the example of my father and join myself to the cause of the
   Christians, who are growing daily, while the heathen are diminishing."
   This low utilitarian consideration weighed heavily in the mind of an
   ambitious captain, who looked forward to the highest seat of power
   within the gift of his age. Whether his mother, whom he always revered,
   and who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in her eightieth year (a.d.
   325), planted the germ of the Christian faith in her son, as Theodoret
   supposes, or herself became a Christian through his influence, as
   Eusebius asserts, must remain undecided. According to the heathen
   Zosimus, whose statement is unquestionably false and malicious, an
   Egyptian, who came out of Spain (probably the bishop Hosius of Cordova,
   a native of Egypt, is intended), persuaded him, after the murder of
   Crispus (which did not occur before 326), that by converting to
   Christianity he might obtain forgiveness of his sins.

   The first public evidence of a positive leaning towards the Christian
   religion he gave in his contest with the pagan Maxentius, who had
   usurped the government of Italy and Africa, and is universally
   represented as a cruel, dissolute tyrant, hated by heathens and
   Christians alike, [17] called by the Roman people to their aid,
   Constantine marched from Gaul across the Alps with an army of
   ninety-eight thousand soldiers of every nationality, and defeated
   Maxentius in three battles; the last in October, 312, at the Milvian
   bridge, near Rome, where Maxentius found a disgraceful death in the
   waters of the Tiber.

   Here belongs the familiar story of the miraculous cross. The precise
   day and place cannot be fixed, but the event must have occurred shortly
   before the final victory over Maxentius in the neighborhood of Rome. As
   this vision is one of the most noted miracles in church history, and
   has a representative significance, it deserves a closer examination. It
   marks for us on the one hand the victory of Christianity over paganism
   in the Roman empire, and on the other the ominous admixture of foreign,
   political, and military interests with it. [18] We need not be
   surprised that in the Nicene age so great a revolution and transition
   should have been clothed with a supernatural character.

   The occurrence is variously described and is not without serious
   difficulties. Lactantius, the earliest witness, some three years after
   the battle, speaks only of a dream by night, in which the emperor was
   directed (it is not stated by whom, whether by Christ, or by an angel)
   to stamp on the shields of his soldiers "the heavenly sign of God,"
   that is, the cross with the name of Christ, and thus to go forth
   against his enemy. [19] Eusebius, on the contrary, gives a more minute
   account on the authority of a subsequent private communication of the
   aged Constantine himself under oath--not, however, till the year 338, a
   year after the death of the emperor, his only witness, and twenty-six
   years after the event. [20] On his march from Gaul to Italy (the spot
   and date are not specified), the emperor, whilst earnestly praying to
   the true God for light and help at this critical time, saw, together
   with his army, [21] in clear daylight towards evening, a shining cross
   in the heavens above the sun) with the inscription: "By this conquer,"
   [22] and in the following night Christ himself appeared to him while he
   slept, and directed him to have a standard prepared in the form of this
   sign of the cross, and with that to proceed against Maxentius and all
   other enemies. This account of Eusebius, or rather of Constantine
   himself, adds to the night dream of Lactantius the preceding vision of
   the day, and the direction concerning the standard, while Lactantius
   speaks of the inscription of the initial letters of Christ's name on
   the shields of the soldiers. According to Rufinus, [23] a later
   historian, who elsewhere depends entirely on Eusebius and can therefore
   not be regarded as a proper witness in the case, the sign of the cross
   appeared to Constantine in a dream (which agrees with the account of
   Lactantius), and upon his awaking in terror, an angel (not Christ)
   exclaimed to him: "Hoc vince." Lactantius, Eusebius, and Rufinus are
   the only Christian writers of the fourth century, who mention the
   apparition. But we have besides one or two heathen testimonies, which,
   though vague and obscure, still serve to strengthen the evidence in
   favor of some actual occurrence. The contemporaneous orator Nazarius,
   in a panegyric upon the emperor, pronounced March 1, 321, apparently at
   Rome, speaks of an army of divine warriors and a divine assistance
   which Constantine received in the engagement with Maxentius, but he
   converts it to the service of heathenism by recurring to old prodigies,
   such as the appearance of Castor and Pollux. [24]

   This famous tradition may be explained either as a real miracle
   implying a personal appearance of Christ, [25] or as a pious fraud,
   [26] or as a natural phenomenon in the clouds and an optical illusion,
   [27] or finally as a prophetic dream.

   The propriety of a miracle, parallel to the signs in heaven which
   preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, might be justified by the
   significance of the victory as marking a great epoch in history,
   namely, the downfall of paganism and the establishment of Christianity
   in the empire. But even if we waive the purely critical objections to
   the Eusebian narrative, the assumed connection, in this case, of the
   gentle Prince of peace with the god of battle, and the subserviency of
   the sacred symbol of redemption to military ambition, is repugnant to
   the genius of the gospel and to sound Christian feeling, unless we
   stretch the theory of divine accommodation to the spirit of the age and
   the passions and interests of individuals beyond the ordinary limits.
   We should suppose, moreover, that Christ, if he had really appeared to
   Constantine either in person (according to Eusebius) or through angels
   (as Rufinus and Sozomen modify it), would have exhorted him to repent
   and be baptized rather than to construct a military ensign for a bloody
   battle. [28] In no case can we ascribe to this occurrence, with
   Eusebius, Theodoret, and older writers, the character of a sudden and
   genuine conversion, as to Paul's vision of Christ on the way to
   Damascus; [29] for, on the one hand, Constantine was never hostile to
   Christianity, but most probably friendly to it from his early youth,
   according to the example of his father; and, on the other, he put off
   his baptism quite five and twenty years, almost to the hour of his
   death.

   The opposite hypothesis of a mere military stratagem or intentional
   fraud is still more objectionable, and would compel us either to impute
   to the first Christian emperor at a venerable age the double crime of
   falsehood and perjury, or, if Eusebius invented the story, to deny to
   the "father of church history" all claim to credibility and common
   respectability. Besides it should be remembered that the older
   testimony of Lactantius, or whoever was the author of the work on the
   Deaths of Persecutors, is quite independent of that of Eusebius, and
   derives additional force from the vague heathen rumors of the time.
   Finally the Hoc vince which has passed into proverbial significance as
   a most appropriate motto of the invincible religion of the cross, is
   too good to be traced to sheer falsehood. Some actual fact, therefore,
   must be supposed to underlie the tradition, and the question only is
   this, whether it was an external visible phenomenon or an internal
   experience.

   The hypothesis of a natural formation of the clouds, which Constantine
   by an optical illusion mistook for a supernatural sign of the cross,
   besides smacking of the exploded rationalistic explanation of the New
   Testament miracles, and deriving an important event from a mere
   accident, leaves the figure of Christ and the Greek or Latin
   inscription: By this sign thou shalt conquer! altogether unexplained.

   We are shut up therefore to the theory of a dream or vision, and an
   experience within the mind of Constantine. This is supported by the
   oldest testimony of Lactantius, as well as by the report of Rufinus and
   Sozomen, and we do not hesitate to regard the Eusebian cross in the
   skies as originally a part of the dream, [30] which only subsequently
   assumed the character of an outward objective apparition either in the
   imagination of Constantine, or by a mistake of the memory of the
   historian, but in either case without intentional fraud. That the
   vision was traced to supernatural origin, especially after the happy
   success, is quite natural and in perfect keeping with the prevailing
   ideas of the age. [31] Tertullian and other ante-Nicene and Nicene
   fathers attributed many conversions to nocturnal dreams and visions.
   Constantine and his friends referred the most important facts of his
   life, as the knowledge of the approach of hostile armies, the discovery
   of the holy sepulchre, the founding of Constantinople, to divine
   revelation through visions and dreams. Nor are we disposed in the least
   to deny the connection of the vision of the cross with the agency of
   divine Providence, which controlled this remarkable turning point of
   history. We may go farther and admit a special providence, or what the
   old divines call a providentia specialissima; but this does not
   necessarily imply a violation of the order of nature or an actual
   miracle in the shape of an objective personal appearance of the
   Saviour. We may refer to a somewhat similar, though far less important,
   vision in the life of the pious English Colonel James Gardiner. [32]
   The Bible itself sanctions the general theory of providential or
   prophetic dreams and nocturnal visions through which divine revelations
   and admonitions are communicated to men. [33]

   The facts, therefore, may have been these. Before the battle
   Constantine, leaning already towards Christianity as probably the best
   and most hopeful of the various religions, seriously sought in prayer,
   as he related to Eusebius, the assistance of the God of the Christians,
   while his heathen antagonist Maxentius, according to Zosimus, [34] was
   consulting the sibylline books and offering sacrifice to the idols.
   Filled with mingled fears and hopes about the issue of the conflict, he
   fell asleep and saw in a dream the sign of the cross of Christ with a
   significant inscription and promise of victory. Being already familiar
   with the general use of this sign among the numerous Christians of the
   empire, many of whom no doubt were in his own army, he constructed the
   labarum, [35] or rather he changed the heathen labarum into a standard
   of the Christian cross with the Greek monogram of Christ, [36] which he
   had also put upon the shields of the soldiers. To this cross-standard,
   which now took the place of the Roman eagles, he attributed the
   decisive victory over the heathen Maxentius.

   Accordingly, after his triumphal entrance into Rome, he had his statue
   erected upon the forum with the labarum in his right hand, and the
   inscription beneath: "By this saving sign, the true token of bravery, I
   have delivered your city from the yoke of the tyrant." [37] Three years
   afterwards the senate erected to him a triumphal arch of marble, which
   to this day, within sight of the sublime ruins of the pagan Colosseum,
   indicates at once the decay of ancient art, and the downfall of
   heathenism; as the neighboring arch of Titus commemorates the downfall
   of Judaism and the destruction of the temple. The inscription on this
   arch of Constantine, however, ascribes his victory over the hated
   tyrant, not only to his master mind, but indefinitely also to the
   impulse of Deity; [38] by which a Christian would naturally understand
   the true God, while a heathen, like the orator Nazarius, in his eulogy
   on Constantine, might take it for the celestial guardian power of the
   "urbs aeterna."

   At all events the victory of Constantine over Maxentius was a military
   and political victory of Christianity over heathenism; the intellectual
   and moral victory having been already accomplished by the literature
   and life of the church in the preceding period. The emblem of ignominy
   and oppression [39] became thenceforward the badge of honor and
   dominion, and was invested in the emperor's view, according to the
   spirit of the church of his day, with a magic virtue. [40] It now took
   the place of the eagle and other field-badges, under which the heathen
   Romans had conquered the world. It was stamped on the imperial coin,
   and on the standards, helmets, and shields of the soldiers. Above all
   military representations of the cross the original imperial labarum
   shone in the richest decorations of gold and gems; was intrusted to the
   truest and bravest fifty of the body guard; filled the Christians with
   the spirit of victory, and spread fear and terror among their enemies;
   until, under the weak successors of Theodosius II., it fell out of use,
   and was lodged as a venerable relic in the imperial palace at
   Constantinople.

   After this victory at Rome (which occurred October 27, 312),
   Constantine, in conjunction with his eastern colleague, Licinius,
   published in January, 313, from Milan, an edict of religious
   toleration, which goes a step beyond the edict of the still
   anti-Christian Galerius in 311, and grants, in the spirit of religious
   eclecticism, full freedom to all existing forms of worship, with
   special reference to the Christian. [41] The edict of 313 not only
   recognized Christianity within existing limits, but allowed every
   subject of the Roman empire to choose whatever religion he preferred.
   [42] At the same time the church buildings and property confiscated in
   the Diocletian persecution were ordered to be restored, and private
   property-owners to be indemnified from the imperial treasury.

   In this notable edict, however, we should look in vain for the modern
   Protestant and Anglo-American theory of religious liberty as one of the
   universal and inalienable rights of man. Sundry voices, it is true, in
   the Christian church itself, at that time, as before and after,
   declared against all compulsion in religion. [43] But the spirit of the
   Roman empire was too absolutistic to abandon the prerogative of a
   supervision of public worship. The Constantinian toleration was a
   temporary measure of state policy, which, as indeed the edict expressly
   states the motive, promised the greatest security to the public peace
   and the protection of all divine and heavenly powers, for emperor and
   empire. It was, as the result teaches, but the necessary transition
   step to a new order of things. It opened the door to the elevation of
   Christianity, and specifically of Catholic hierarchical Christianity,
   with its exclusiveness towards heretical and schismatic sects, to be
   the religion of the state. For, once put on equal footing with
   heathenism, it must soon, in spite of numerical minority, bear away the
   victory from a religion which had already inwardly outlived itself.

   From this time Constantine decidedly favored the church, though without
   persecuting or forbidding the pagan religions. He always mentions the
   Christian church with reverence in his imperial edicts, and uniformly
   applies to it, as we have already observed, the predicate of catholic.
   For only as a catholic, thoroughly organized, firmly compacted, and
   conservative institution did it meet his rigid monarchical interest,
   and afford the splendid state and court dress he wished for his empire.
   So early as the year 313 we find the bishop Hosius of Cordova among his
   counsellors, and heathen writers ascribe to the bishop even a magical
   influence over the emperor. Lactantius, also, and Eusebius of Caesarea
   belonged to his confidential circle. He exempted the Christian clergy
   from military and municipal duty (March, 313); abolished various
   customs and ordinances offensive to the Christians (315); facilitated
   the emancipation of Christian slaves (before 316); legalized bequests
   to catholic churches (321); enjoined the civil observance of Sunday,
   though not as dies Domini, but as dies Solis, in conformity to his
   worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular
   consulting of the haruspex (321); contributed liberally to the building
   of churches and the support of the clergy; erased the heathen symbols
   of Jupiter and Apollo, Mars and Hercules from the imperial coins (323);
   and gave his sons a Christian education.

   This mighty example was followed, as might be expected, by a general
   transition of those subjects, who were more influenced in their conduct
   by outward circumstances, than by inward conviction and principle. The
   story, that in one year (324) twelve thousand men, with women and
   children in proportion, were baptized in Rome, and that the emperor had
   promised to each convert a white garment and twenty pieces of gold, is
   at least in accordance with the spirit of that reign, though the fact
   itself, in all probability, is greatly exaggerated. [44]

   Constantine came out with still greater decision, when, by his victory
   over his Eastern colleague and brother-in-law, Licinius, he became sole
   head of the whole Roman empire. To strengthen his position, Licinius
   had gradually placed himself at the head of the heathen party, still
   very numerous, and had vexed the Christians first with wanton ridicule
   [45] then with exclusion from civil and military office, with
   banishment, and in some instances perhaps even with bloody persecution.
   This gave the political strife for the monarchy between himself and
   Constantine the character also of a war of religions; and the defeat of
   Licinius in the battle of Adrianople in July, 324, and at Chalcedon in
   September, was a new triumph of the standard of the cross over the
   sacrifices of the gods; save that Constantine dishonored himself and
   his cause by the execution of Licinius and his son.

   The emperor now issued a general exhortation to his subjects to embrace
   the Christian religion, still leaving them, however, to their own free
   conviction. In the year 325, as patron of the church, he summoned the
   council of Nice, and himself attended it; banished the Arians, though
   he afterwards recalled them; and, in his monarchical spirit of
   uniformity, showed great zeal for the settlement of all theological
   disputes, while he was blind to their deep significance. He first
   introduced the practice of subscription to the articles of a written
   creed and of the infliction of civil punishments for non-conformity. In
   the years 325-329, in connection with his mother, Helena, he erected
   magnificent churches on the sacred spots in Jerusalem.

   As heathenism had still the preponderance in Rome, where it was
   hallowed by its great traditions, Constantine, by divine command as he
   supposed, [46] in the year 330, transferred the seat of his government
   to Byzantium, and thus fixed the policy, already initiated by Domitian,
   of orientalizing and dividing the empire. In the selection of the
   unrivalled locality he showed more taste and genius than the founders
   of Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, St. Petersburg, or Washington. With
   incredible rapidity, and by all the means within reach of an absolute
   monarch, he turned this nobly situated town, connecting two seas and
   two continents, into a splendid residence and a new Christian Rome,
   "for which now," as Gregory of Nazianzen expresses it, "sea and land
   emulate each other, to load it with their treasures, and crown it queen
   of cities." [47] Here, instead of idol temples and altars, churches and
   crucifixes rose; though among them the statues of patron deities from
   all over Greece, mutilated by all sorts of tasteless adaptations, were
   also gathered in the new metropolis. [48] The main hall in the palace
   was adorned with representations of the crucifixion and other biblical
   scenes. The gladiatorial shows, so popular in Rome, were forbidden
   here, though theatres, amphitheatres, and hippodromes kept their place.
   It could nowhere be mistaken, that the new imperial residence was as to
   all outward appearance a Christian city. The smoke of heathen
   sacrifices never rose from the seven hills of New Rome except during
   the short reign of Julian the Apostate. It became the residence of a
   bishop who not only claimed the authority of the apostolic see of
   neighboring Ephesus, but soon outshone the patriarchate of Alexandria
   and rivalled for centuries the papal power in ancient Rome.

   The emperor diligently attended divine worship, and is portrayed upon
   medals in the posture of prayer. He kept the Easter vigils with great
   devotion. He would stand during the longest sermons of his bishops, who
   always surrounded him, and unfortunately flattered him only too much.
   And he even himself composed and delivered discourses to his court, in
   the Latin language, from which they were translated into Greek by
   interpreters appointed for the purpose. [49] General invitations were
   issued, and the citizens flocked in great crowds to the palace to hear
   the imperial preacher, who would in vain try to prevent their loud
   applause by pointing to heaven as the source of his wisdom. He dwelt
   mainly on the truth of Christianity, the folly of idolatry, the unity
   and providence of God, the coming of Christ, and the judgment. At times
   he would severely rebuke the avarice and rapacity of his courtiers, who
   would loudly applaud him with their mouths, and belie his exhortation
   by their works. [50] One of these productions is still extant, [51] in
   which he recommends Christianity in a characteristic strain, and in
   proof of its divine origin cites especially the fulfilment of prophecy,
   including the Sibylline books and the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil, with
   the contrast between his own happy and brilliant reign and the tragical
   fate of his persecuting predecessors and colleagues.

   Nevertheless he continued in his later years true upon the whole to the
   toleration principles of the edict of 313, protected the pagan priests
   and temples in their privileges, and wisely abstained from all violent
   measures against heathenism, in the persuasion that it would in time
   die out. He retained many heathens at court and in public office,
   although he loved to promote Christians to honorable positions. In
   several cases, however, he prohibited idolatry, where it sanctioned
   scandalous immorality, as in the obscene worship of Venus in Phenicia;
   or in places which were specially sacred to the Christians, as the
   sepulchre of Christ and the grove of Mamre; and he caused a number of
   deserted temples and images to be destroyed or turned into Christian
   churches. Eusebius relates several such instances with evident
   approbation, and praises also his later edicts against various heretics
   and schismatics, but without mentioning the Arians. In his later years
   he seems, indeed, to have issued a general prohibition of idolatrous
   sacrifice; Eusebius speaks of it, and his sons in 341 refer to an edict
   to that effect; but the repetition of it by his successors proves,
   that, if issued, it was not carried into general execution under his
   reign.

   With this shrewd, cautious, and moderate policy of Constantine, which
   contrasts well with the violent fanaticism of his sons, accords the
   postponement of his own baptism to his last sickness. [52] For this he
   had the further motives of a superstitious desire, which he himself
   expresses, to be baptized in the Jordan, whose waters had been
   sanctified by the Saviour's baptism, and no doubt also a fear, that he
   might by relapse forfeit the sacramental remission of sins. He wished
   to secure all the benefit of baptism as a complete expiation of past
   sins, with as little risk as possible, and thus to make the best of
   both worlds. Deathbed baptisms then were to half Christians of that age
   what deathbed conversions and deathbed communions are now. Yet he
   presumed to preach the gospel, he called himself the bishop of bishops,
   he convened the first general council, and made Christianity the
   religion of the empire, long before his baptism! Strange as this
   inconsistency appears to us, what shall we think of the court bishops
   who, from false prudence, relaxed in his favor the otherwise strict
   discipline of the church, and admitted him, at least tacitly, to the
   enjoyment of nearly all the privileges of believers, before he had
   taken upon himself even a single obligation of a catechumen!

   When, after a life of almost uninterrupted health, he felt the approach
   of death, he was received into the number of catechumens by laying on
   of hands, and then formally admitted by baptism into the full communion
   of the church in the year 337, the sixty-fifth year of his age, by the
   Arian (or properly Semi-Arian) bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he
   had shortly before recalled from exile together with Arius. [53] His
   dying testimony then was, as to form, in favor of heretical rather than
   orthodox Christianity, but merely from accident, not from intention. He
   meant the Christian as against the heathen religion, and whatever of
   Arianism may have polluted his baptism, was for the Greek church fully
   wiped out by the orthodox canonization. After the solemn ceremony he
   promised to live thenceforth worthily of a disciple of Jesus; refused
   to wear again the imperial mantle of cunningly woven silk richly
   ornamented with gold; retained the white baptismal robe; and died a few
   days after, on Pentecost, May 22, 337, trusting in the mercy of God,
   and leaving a long, a fortunate, and a brilliant reign, such as none
   but Augustus, of all his predecessors, had enjoyed. "So passed away the
   first Christian Emperor, the first Defender of the Faith, the first
   Imperial patron of the Papal see, and of the whole Eastern Church, the
   first founder of the Holy Places, Pagan and Christian, orthodox and
   heretical, liberal and fanatical, not to be imitated or admired, but
   much to be remembered, and deeply to be studied." [54]

   His remains were removed in a golden coffin by a procession of
   distinguished civilians and the whole army, from Nicomedia to
   Constantinople, and deposited, with the highest Christian honors, in
   the church of the Apostles, [55] while the Roman senate, after its
   ancient custom, proudly ignoring the great religious revolution of the
   age, enrolled him among the gods of the heathen Olympus. Soon after his
   death, Eusebius set him above the greatest princes of all times; from
   the fifth century he began to be recognized in the East as a saint; and
   the Greek and Russian church to this day celebrates his memory under
   the extravagant title of "Isapostolos," the "Equal of the apostles."
   [56] The Latin church, on the contrary, with truer tact, has never
   placed him among the saints, but has been content with naming him "the
   Great," in just and grateful remembrance of his services to the cause
   of Christianity and civilization.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] Comp. vol. i. § 57. Galerius died soon after of a disgusting and
   terrible disease (morbus pedicularis), described with great minuteness
   by Eusebius, H. E. viii. 16, and Lactantius, De mort. persec. c.
   33."His body," says Gibbon, ch. xiv. "swelled by an intemperate course
   of life to an unwieldy corpulence, was covered with ulcers and devoured
   by innumerable swarms of those insects which have given their name to a
   most loathsome disease." Diocletian had withdrawn from the throne in
   305, and in 313 put an end to his embittered life by suicide. In his
   retirement he found more pleasure in raising cabbage than he had found
   in ruling the empire; a confession we may readily believe. (President
   Lincoln of the United States, during the dark days of the civil war in
   Dec. 1862, declared that he would gladly exchange his position with any
   common soldier in the tented field.) Maximin, who kept up the
   persecution in the East, even after the toleration edict, as long as he
   could, died likewise a violent death by poison, in 313. In this
   tragical end of their last three imperial persecutors the Christians
   saw a palpable judgment of God.

   [3] His full name in Latin is Caius Flavius Valerius Aurelius Claudius
   Constantinus Magnus.

   [4] Episkopos ton ektos [pragmaton], viz.: tes ekklesias, in
   distinction from the proper bishops, the episkopoi ton eiso tes
   ekklesias. Vid. Eus.: Vit Const. iv. 24. Comp. § 24.

   [5] A similar view is substantially expressed by the great historian
   Niebuhr, Vorträge über Röm. Geschichte, 1848. iii. 302. Mosheim, in his
   work on the First Three Centuries, p. 965 sqq. (Murdock's Transl. ii.
   460 sqq.) labors to prove at length that Constantinewas no hypocrite,
   but sincerely believed, during the greater part of his life, that the
   Christian religion was the only true religion. Burckhardt, the most
   recent biographer of Constantine, represents him as a great politician
   of decided genius, but destitute of moral principle and religious
   interest. So also Dr. Baur.

   [6] The haruspices, or interpreters of sacrifices, who foretold future
   events from the entrails of victims.

   [7] According to Eusebius (Vit. Const. l. iii. c. 48) he dedicated
   Constantinople to "the God of the martyrs," but, according to Zosimus
   (Hist. ii. c. 31), to two female deities, probably Mary and Fortuna.
   Subsequently the city stood under the special protection of the Virgin
   Mary.

   [8] His successors also did the same, down to Gratian, 375, who
   renounced the title, then become quite empty.

   [9] Euseb. Laud. Const. c. 5.

   [10] All Christian accounts speak of his continence, but Julian
   insinuates the contrary, and charges him with the old Roman vice of
   voracious gluttony (Caes. 329, 335).

   [11] Eusebius justifies this procedure towards an enemy of the
   Christians by the laws of war. But what becomes of the breach of a
   solemn pledge? The murder of Crispus and Fausta he passes over in
   prudent silence, in violation of the highest duty of the historian to
   relate the truth and the whole truth.

   [12] Zosimus, certainly in heathen prejudice and slanderous
   extravagance, ascribes to Constantine under the instigation of his
   mother Helena, who was furious at the loss of her favorite grandson,
   the death of two women, the innocent Fausta and an adulteress, the
   supposed mother of his three successors; Philostorgius, on the
   contrary, declares Fausta guilty (H. E. ii. 4; only fragmentary). Then
   again, older witnesses indirectly contradict this whole view; two
   orations, namely, of the next following reign, which imply, that Fausta
   survived the death of her son, the younger Constantine, who outlived
   his father by three years. Comp. Julian. Orat. i., and Monod. in Const.
   Jun. c. 4, ad Calcem Eutrop., cited by Gibbon, ch. xviii., notes 25 and
   26. Evagrius denies both the murder of Crispus and of Fausta, though
   only on account of the silence of Eusebius, whose extreme partiality
   for his imperial friend seriously impairs the value of his narrative.
   Gibbon and still more decidedly Niebuhr (Vorträge über Röm. Geschichte,
   iii. 302) are inclined to acquit Constantine of all guilt in the death
   of Fausta. The latest biographer, Burckhardt (l.c. p. 375) charges him
   with it rather hastily, without even mentioning the critical
   difficulties in the way. So also Stanley (l.c. p. 300).

   [13] The heathen historians extol the earlier part of his reign, and
   depreciate the later. Thus Eutropius, x. 6: "In primo imperii tempore
   optimis principibus, ultimo mediis comparandus." With this judgment
   Gibbon agrees (ch. xviii.), presenting in Constantinean inverted
   Augustus: "In the life of Augustus we behold the tyrant of the
   republic, converted, almost by imperceptible degrees, into the father
   of his country and of human kind. In that of Constantine, we may
   contemplate a hero, who had so long inspired his subjects with love,
   and his enemies with terror, degenerating into a cruel and dissolute
   monarch, corrupted by his fortune, or raised by conquest above the
   necessity of dissimulation." But this theory of progressive degeneracy,
   adopted also by F. C. Schlosser in his Weltgeschichte, by Stanley, l.c.
   p. 297, and many others, is as untenable as the opposite view of a
   progressive improvement, held by Eusebius, Mosheim, and other
   ecclesiastical historians. For, on the one hand, the earlier life of
   Constantinehas such features of cruelty as the surrender of the
   conquered barbarian kings to the wild beasts in the ampitheatre at
   Treves in 310 or 311, for which he was lauded by a heathen orator; the
   ungenerous conduct toward Herculius, his father-in-law; the murder of
   the infant son of Maxentius; and the triumphal exhibition of the head
   of Maxentius on his entrance into Rome in 312. On the other hand his
   most humane laws, such as the abolition of the gladiatorial shows and
   of licentious and cruel rites, date from his later reign.

   [14] According to Baronius (Ann. 306, n. 16) and others he was born in
   Britain, because an ancient panegyric of 307 says that Constantine
   ennobled Britain by his birth (tu Britannias nobiles oriendo fecisti);
   but this may be understood of his royal as well as of his natural
   birth, since he was there proclaimed Caesar by the soldiers. The other
   opinion rests also on ancient testimonies, and is held by Pagi,
   Tillemont, and most of the recent historians.

   [15] Ambrose(De obitu Theodos.) calls her stabulariam, when Constantius
   made her acquaintance.

   [16] This is the more probable view, and rests on good authority.
   Zosimus and even the Paschal Chronicle call Helena the concubine of
   Constantius, and Constantine illegitimate. But in this case it would be
   difficult to understand that he was so well treated at the court of
   Diocletian and elected Caesar without opposition, since Constantius had
   three sons and three daughters by a legal wife, Theodora. It is
   possible, however, that Helena was first a concubine and afterwards
   legally married. Constantine, when emperor, took good care of her
   position and bestowed upon her the title of Augusta and empress with
   appropriate honors.

   [17] Even Zosimus gives the most unfavorable account of him.

   [18] "It was," says Milman (Hist. of Christianity, p. 288, N. York
   ed.), "the first advance to the military Christianity of the Middle
   Ages; a modification of the pure religion of the Gospel, if directly
   opposed to its genuine principles, still apparently indispensable to
   the social progress of man; through which the Roman empire and the
   barbarous nations, which were blended together in the vast European and
   Christian system, must necessarily have passed before they could arrive
   at a higher civilization and a purer Christianity."

   [19] De mortibus persecutorum, c. 44 (ed. Lips. II. 278 sq.):
   "Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut coeleste signum Dei notaret
   in scutis, atque ita proelium committeret. Fecit ut jussus est, et
   transverse X litera, summo capite circumflexo Christum in scutis notat
   [i.e., he ordered the name of Christ or the two first letters X and P
   to be put on the shields of his soldiers]. Quo signo armatus exercitus
   capit ferrum."--This work is indeed by Burckhardt and others denied to
   Lactantius, but was at all events composed soon after the event, about
   314 or 315, while Constantine was as yet on good terms with Licinius,
   to whom the author, c. 46, ascribes a similar vision of an angel, who
   is said to have taught him a form of prayer on his expedition against
   the heathen tyrant Maximin.

   [20] In his Vita Constant. i. 27-30, composed about 338, a work more
   panegyrical than historical, and abounding in vague declamation and
   circumlocution. But in his Church History, written before 326, though
   he has good occasion (l. ix. c. 8, 9), Eusebius says nothing of the
   occurrence, whether through oversight or ignorance, or of purpose, it
   is hard to decide. In any case the silence casts suspicion on the
   details of his subsequent story, and has been urged against it not only
   by Gibbon, but also by Lardner and others.

   [21] This is probably a mistake or an exaggeration. For if a whole army
   consisting of many thousand soldiers of every nation had seen the
   vision of the cross, Eusebius might have cited a number of living
   witnesses, and Constantine might have dispensed with a solemn oath. But
   on the other hand the two heathen witnesses (see below) extend the
   vision likewise to the soldiers.

   [22] touto [to semeio] nika? Hac, or Hoc [sc. signo] vince, or vinces.
   Eusebius leaves the impression that the inscription was in Greek. But
   Nicephorus and Zonaras say that it was in Latin.

   [23] Hist. Eccl. ix, 9. Comp. the similar account of Sozomenus, H. E.
   i. 3.

   [24] Nazar. Paneg. in Const. c. 14: "In ore denique est omnium
   Galliarum [this would seem to indicate a pretty general rumor of some
   supernatural assistance], exercitus visos, qui se divinitus missos prae
   se ferebant," etc. Comp. Baronius, Annal. ad ann. 312, n. 11. This
   historian adduces also (n. 14) another and still older pagan testimony
   from an anonymous panegyrical orator, who, in 313, speaks of a certain
   undefined omen which filled the soldiers of Constantinewith misgivings
   and fears, while it emboldened him to the combat. Baronius and J. H.
   Newman (in his "Essay on Miracles") plausibly suppose this omen to have
   been the cross.

   [25] This is the view of the older historians, Protestant as well as
   Catholic. Among more modern writers on the subject it has hardly any
   advocates of note, except Döllinger (R.C.), J. H.Newman (in his "Essay
   on Miracles," published in 1842, before his transition to Romanism, and
   prefixed to the first volume of his translation of Fleury), and
   Guericke (Lutheran). Comp. also De Broglie, i. 219 and 442.

   [26] So more or less distinctly Hoornebeck (of Leyden), Thomasius,
   Arnold, Lardner, Gibbon, and Waddington. The last writer (Hist. of the
   Church, vol. i. 171) disposes of it too summarily by the remark that
   "this flattering fable may very safely be consigned to contempt and
   oblivion." Burckhardt, the most recent biographer of Constantine, is of
   the same opinion. He considers the story as a joint fabrication of
   Eusebius and the emperor, and of no historical value whatever (Die Zeit
   Constantins des Gr. 1853, pp. 394 and 395). Lardner saddles the lie
   exclusively upon the emperor (although he admits him otherwise to have
   been a sincere Christian), and tries to prove that Eusebius himself
   hardly believed it.

   [27] This is substantially the theory of J. A. Fabricius (in a special
   dissertation), Schröckh (vol. v. 83), Manso, Heinichen (in the first
   Excursus to his ed. of Euseb), Gieseler, Neander, Milman, Robertson,
   and Stanley. Gieseler (vol. i. § 56, note 29) mentions similar
   cross-like clouds which appeared in Germany, Dec. 1517 and 1552, and
   were mistaken by contemporary Lutherans for supernatural signs. Stanley
   (Lectures on the Eastern Church, p. 288) refers to the natural
   phenomenon known by the name of "parhelion," which in an afternoon sky
   not unfrequently assumes almost the form of the cross. He also brings
   in, as a new illustration, the Aurora Borealis which appeared in
   November, 1848, and was variously interpreted, in France as forming the
   letters L. N., in view of the approaching election of Louis Napoleon,
   in Rome as the blood of the murdered Rossi crying for vengeance from
   heaven against his assassins. Mosheim, after a lengthy discussion of
   the subject in his large work on the ante-Nicene age, comes to no
   definite conclusion, but favors the hypothesis of a mere dream or a
   psychological illusion. Neander and Robertson connect with the
   supposition of a natural phenomenon in the skies a dream of Constantine
   which reflected the optical vision of the day. Keim, the latest writer
   on the subject, l.c. p. 89, admits the dream, but denies the cross in
   the clouds. So Mosheim.

   [28] Dr. Murdock (notes to his translation of Mosheim) raises the
   additional objection, which has some force from his Puritan standpoint:
   "If the miracle of the luminous cross was a reality, has not God
   himself sanctioned the use of the cross as the appointed symbol of our
   religion? so that there is no superstition in the use of it, but the
   Catholics are correct and the Protestants in an error on this subject?"

   [29] Theodoret says that Constantinewas called not of men or by men
   (ouk ap anthropou, oude di anthropou, Gal. i. 1), but from heaven, as
   the divine apostle Paul was (ouranothen kata ton theion apostolon).
   Hist. Eccl. l. i. c. 2.

   [30] So Sozomenus, H. E. lib. i. cap. 3, expressly represents it: honar
   eide to tou staurou semeion selagizonetc. Afterwards he gives, it is
   true, the fuller report of Eusebius in his own words. Comp. Rufin. ix.
   9; Euseb. Vit. Const. i. 29; Lact. De mort. persec. 44, and the
   allusions of the heathen panegyrists.

   [31] Licinius before the battle with Maximin had a vision of an angel
   who taught him a prayer for victory (Lactant. De mort. persec. c. 46).
   Julianthe Apostate was even more superstitious in this respect than his
   Christian uncle, and fully addicted to the whole train of omens,
   presages, prodigies, spectres, dreams, visions, auguries, and oracles
   (Comp. below, § 4). On his expedition against the Persians he was
   supposed by Libanius to have been surrounded by a whole army of gods,
   which, however, in the view of Gregory of Nazianzen, was a host of
   demons. See Ullmann, Gregory of Naz., p. 100.

   [32] According to the account of his friend, Dr. Philip Doddridge, who
   learned the facts from Gardiner, as Eusebius from Constantine. When
   engaged in serious meditation on a Sabbath night in July, 1719,
   Gardiner "suddenly thought he saw an unusual blaze of light fall on the
   book while he was reading, which he at first imagined might have
   happened by some accident in the candle. But lifting up his eyes, he
   apprehended, to his extreme amazement, that there was before him, as it
   were suspended in the air, a visible representation of the Lord Jesus
   Christ upon the cross, surrounded with a glory; and was impressed as if
   a voice, or something equivalent to a voice, had come to him, to this
   effect: 'O sinner, did I suffer this for thee, and are these the
   returns?' " After this event he changed from a dissolute worldling to
   an earnest and godly man. But the whole apparition was probably, after
   all, merely an inward one. For the report adds as to the voice:
   "Whether this were an audible voice, or only a strong impression on his
   mind, equally striking, he did not seem confident, though he judged it
   to be the former. He thought he was awake. But everybody knows how easy
   it is towards midnight to fall into a doze over a dull or even a good
   book. It is very probable then that this apparition resolves itself
   into a significant dream which marked an epoch in his life. No
   reflecting person will on that account doubt the seriousness of
   Gardiner's conversion, which was amply proved by his whole subsequent
   life, even far more than Constantine's was.

   [33] Numbers xii. 6: "I the Lord will make myself known in a vision,
   and will speak in a dream." Job xxxiii. 15, 16: "In a dream, in a
   vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings
   upon the bed, then he openeth the ears of men and sealeth their
   instruction." For actual facts see Gen. xxxi. 10, 24; xxxvii. 5; 1
   Kings iii. 5; Dan. ii. 4, 36; vii. 1; Matt. i. 20; ii. 12, 13, 19, 22;
   Acts x. 17; xxii. 17, 18.

   [34] Histor. ii. 16.

   [35] Laboron, also labouron; derived not from labor, nor from laphuron,
   i.e. praeda, nor from labein, but probably from a barbarian root,
   otherwise unknown, and introduced into the Roman terminology, long
   before Constantine, by the Celtic or Germanic recruits. Comp. Du Cange,
   Glossar., and Suicer, Thesaur. s. h. v. The labarum, as described by
   Eusebius, who saw it himself (Vita Const. i. 30), consisted of a long
   spear overlaid with gold, and a crosspiece of wood, from which hung a
   square flag of purple cloth embroidered and covered with precious
   stones. On the of top of the shaft was a crown composed of gold and
   precious stones, and containing the monogram of Christ (see next note),
   and just under this crown was a likeness the emperor and his sons in
   gold. The emperor told Eusebius (I. ii. c. 7) some incredible things
   about this labarum, e.g. that none of its bearers was ever hurt by the
   darts of the enemy.

   [36] X and P, the first two letters of the name of Christ, so written
   upon one another as to make the form of the cross: P with x (Rho with
   Chi on the lower part) or Pwith--(Rho with a dash on the lower part to
   make a cross), or aPo(i.e. Christos--Alpha and Omega, the beginning and
   the end with a chi on the stem to make the cross), and similar forms,
   of which Münter (Sinnbilder der alten Christen, p. 36 sqq.) has
   collected from ancient coins, vessels, and tombstones more than twenty.
   The monogram, as well as the sign of the cross, was in use among the
   Christians Iong before Constantine, probably as early as the Antonines
   and Hadrian. Yea, the standards and trophies of victory generally had
   the appearance of a cross, as Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Justin, and
   other apologists of the second century told the heathens. According to
   Killen (Ancient Church, p. 317, note), who quotes Aringhus, Roma
   subterranea, ii. p. 567, as his authority, the famous monogram (of
   course in a different sense) is found even before Christ on coins of
   the Ptolemies. The only thing new, therefore, was the union of this
   symbol, in its Christian sense and application, with the Roman military
   standard.

   [37] Eus., H. E. ix. 9: Touto to soteriodei (salutari, not singulari,
   as Rufinus has it) semeio, to alethino elencho tos andrias , ten polin
   humon apo zugou tou turannou diasotheisan eleutherosa, k. t. l. Gibbon,
   however thinks it more probable, that at least the labarum and the
   inscription date only from the second or third visit of Constantineto
   Rome.

   [38] "Instinctu Divinitatis et mentis magnitudine." Divinitas may be
   taken as an ambiguous word like Providence, "which veils Constantine's
   passage from Paganism to Christianity."

   [39] Cicero says, pro Raberio, c. 5: "Nomen ipsum crucis absit non modo
   a corpore civium Romanorum, sed etiam a cogitatione, oculis, auribus."
   With other ancient heathens, however, the Egyptians, the Buddhists, and
   even the aborigines of Mexico, the cross seems to have been in use as a
   religious symbol. Socrates relates (H. E. v. 17) that at the
   destruction of the temple of Serapis, among the hieroglyphic
   inscriptions forms of crosses were found, which pagans and Christians
   alike referred to their respective religions. Some of the heathen
   converts conversant with hieroglyphic characters interpreted the form
   of the cross to mean the Life to come. According to Prescott (Conquest
   of Mexico, iii. 338-340) the Spaniards found the cross among the
   objects of worship in the idol temples of Anahnac.

   [40] Even church teachers long before Constantine, Justin, Tertullian,
   Minucius Felix, in downright opposition to this pagan antipathy, had
   found the sign of the cross everywhere on the face of nature and of
   human life; in the military banners and trophies of victory, in the
   ship with swelling sails and extended oars, in the plow in the flying
   bird, in man swimming or praying, in the features of the face and the
   form of the body with outstretched arms. Hence the daily use of the of
   the cross by the early Christians. Comp. vol. ii. § 77 (p. 269 sqq.).

   [41] This in the second edict of toleration, not the third, as was
   formerly supposed. An edict of 312 does not exist and rests on a
   mistake. See vol. ii. § 25, p. 72.

   [42] "Haec ordinanda esse credidimus ... ut daremus et Christianis et
   omnibus liberam potestatem sequendi religionem, quamquisque voluisset
   ... ut nulli omnino facultatem obnegandam putaremus, qui vel
   observationi Christianorum, vel ei religioni mentem suam dederet, quam
   ipse sibi aptissimam esse sentiret ... ut, amotis omnibus ominino
   conditionibus [by which are meant, no doubt, the restrictions of
   toleration in the edict of 311], nunc libere ac simpliciter unusquisque
   eorum qui eandem observandae religioni Christianorum gerunt voluntatem,
   citra ullam inquietudinem et molestiam sui id ipsum observare
   contendant." Lact., De mort, persec. c. 48 (ii. p. 282, ed. Fritzsche).
   Eusebius gives the edict in a stiff and obscure Greek translation, with
   some variations, H. E. x. 5. Comp. Niceph. H. E. vii. 41. Also a
   special essay on the edicts of toleration, by Theod. Keim in the
   Tübinger Theolog. Jahrbücher for 1852, and Mason, persecution of
   Diocletian, pp. 299 and 326.

   [43] Compare the remarkable passages of Tertullian, cited in vol. ii. §
   13, p. 35. Lactantius likewise, in the beginning of the fourth century,
   says, Instit. div. l. v. c. 19 (i. p. 267 sq. ed. Lips.): "Non est opus
   vi et injuria, quia religio cogi non potest; verbis potius, quam
   verberibus res agenda est, ut sit voluntas .... Defendenda religio est,
   non occidendo, sed moriendo; non saevitia, sed patientia; non scelere,
   sed fide .... Nam si sanguine, si tormentis, si malo religionem
   defendere velis, jam non defendetur illa, sed polluetur atque
   violabitur. Nihil est enim tam voluntarium, quam religio, in qua si
   animus sacrificantis aversus est, jam sublata, jam nulla est." Comp. c.
   20.

   [44] For the Acta St. Silvestri and the H. Eccl. of Nicephorus Callist.
   vii. 34 (in Baronius, ad ann. 324) are of course not reliable authority
   on this point.

   [45] He commanded the Christians, for example, to hold their large
   assemblies in open fields instead of in the churches, because the fresh
   air was more wholesome for them than the close atmosphere in a
   building!

   [46] "Jubente Deo," says he in one of his laws. Cod. Theodos. l. xiii.
   tit. v. leg. 7. Later writers ascribe the founding of Constantinople to
   a nocturnal vision of the emperor, and an injunction of the Virgin
   Mary, who was revered as patroness, one might almost suppose as
   goddess, of the city.

   [47] The Turks still call it emphatically the city. For Stambul is a
   corruption of Istambul, which means: eis ten polin.

   [48] The most offensive of these is the colossal bronze statue of
   Apollo, pretended to be the work of Phidias, which Constantine set up
   in the middle of the Forum on a pillar of porphyry, a hundred and
   twenty feet high, and which, at least according to later
   interpretations, served to represent the emperor himself with the
   attributes of Christ and the god of the sun! So says the author of
   Antiquit. Constant. in Banduri, and J. v. Hammer: Constantinopolis u.
   der Bosphorus, i. 162 (cited in Milman's notes to Gibbon). Nothing now
   remains of the pillar but a mutilated piece.

   [49] Euseb. V. C. iv. 29-33. Burckhardt, l.c. p. 400, gives little
   credit to this whole account of Eusebius, and thus intimates the charge
   of deliberate falsehood.

   [50] Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 29 ad finem.

   [51] Const. Oratio ad Sanctorum coetum, was preserved in Greek
   translation by Eusebius as an appendix to his biography of the emperor.

   [52] The pretended baptism of Constantine by the Roman bishop Sylvester
   in 324, and his bestowment of lands on the pope in connection with it,
   is a mediaeval fiction, still unblushingly defended indeed by Baronius
   (ad ann. 324, No. 43-49), but long since given up by other Roman
   Catholic historians, such as Noris, Tillemont, and Valesius. It is
   sufficiently refuted by the contemporary testimony of Eusebius alone
   (Vit. Const. iv. 61, 62), who places the baptism of Constantineat the
   end of his life, and minutely describes it; and Socrates, Sozomen,
   Ambrose, and Jerome coincide with him.

   [53] Hence Jerome says, Constantine was baptized into Arianism. And Dr.
   Newman, the ex-Tractarian, remarks, that in conferring his benefaction
   on the church he burdened it with the bequest of an heresy, which
   outlived his age by many centuries, and still exists in its effects in
   the divisions of the East (The Arians of the 4th Century, 1854, p.
   138). But Eusebius (not the church historian) was probably the nearest
   bishop, and acted here not as a party leader. Constantine, too, in
   spite of the influence which the Arians had over him in his later
   years, considered himself constantly a true adherent of the Nicene
   faith, and he is reported by Theodoret (H. E. I. 32) to have ordered
   the recall of Athanasius from exile on his deathbed, in spite of the
   opposition of the Arian Eusebius. He was in these matters frequently
   misled by misrepresentations, and cared more for peace than for truth.
   The deeper significance of the dogmatic controversy was entirely beyond
   his sphere. Gibbon is right in this matter: "The credulous monarch,
   unskilled in the stratagems of theological warfare, might be deceived
   by the modest and specious professions of the heretics, whose
   sentiments he never perfectly understood; and while he protected Arius,
   and persecuted Athanasius, he still considered the council of Nice as
   the bulwark of the Christian faith, and the peculiar glory of his own
   reign." Ch. xxi.

   [54] Stanley, l.c. p. 320.

   [55] This church became the burial place of the Byzantine emperors,
   till in the fourth crusade the coffins were rifled and the bodies cast
   out. Mahomet II. destroyed the church and built in its place the
   magnificent mosque which bears his name. See von Hammer, i. 390.

   [56] Comp the Acta Sact. ad 21 Maii, p. 13 sq. Niebuhr justly remarks:
   "When certain oriental writers call Constantine" equal to the
   Apostles,' they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him
   as a 'saint' is a profanation of the word."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 3. The Sons of Constantine. a.d. 337-361.

   For the literature see § 2 and § 4.

   With the death of Constantine the monarchy also came, for the present,
   to an end. The empire was divided among his three sons, Constantine
   II., Constans, and Constantius. Their accession was not in Christian
   style, but after the manner of genuine Turkish, oriental despotism; it
   trod upon the corpses of the numerous kindred of their father,
   excepting two nephews, Gallus and Julian, who were saved only by
   sickness and youth from the fury of the soldiers. Three years later
   followed a war of the brothers for the sole supremacy. Constantine II.
   was slain by Constans (340), who was in turn murdered by a barbarian
   field officer and rival, Magnentius (350). After the defeat and the
   suicide of Magnentius, Constantius, who had hitherto reigned in the
   East, became sole emperor, and maintained himself through many storms
   until his natural death (353-361).

   The sons of Constantine did their Christian education little honor, and
   departed from their father's wise policy of toleration. Constantius, a
   temperate and chaste, but jealous, vain, and weak prince, entirely
   under the control of eunuchs, women, and bishops, entered upon a
   violent suppression of the heathen religion, pillaged and destroyed
   many temples, gave the booty to the church, or to his eunuchs,
   flatterers, and worthless favorites, and prohibited, under penalty of
   death, all sacrifices and worship of images in Rome, Alexandria, and
   Athens, though the prohibition could not be carried out. Hosts now came
   over to Christianity, though, of course, for the most part with the
   lips only, not with the heart. But this emperor proceeded with the same
   intolerance against the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy, and punished
   them with confiscation and banishment. His brothers supported
   Athanasius, but he himself was a fanatical Arian. In fact, he meddled
   in all the affairs of the church, which was convulsed during his reign
   with doctrinal controversy. He summoned a multitude of councils, in
   Gaul, in Italy, in Illyricum, and in Asia; aspired to the renown of a
   theologian; and was fond of being called bishop of bishops, though,
   like his father, he postponed baptism till shortly before his death.

   Those were there, it is true, who justified this violent suppression of
   idolatry, by reference to the extermination of the Canaanites under
   Joshua. [57] But intelligent church teachers, like Athanasius, Hosius,
   and Hilary, gave their voice for toleration, though even they mean
   particularly toleration for orthodoxy, for the sake of which they
   themselves had been deposed and banished by the Arian power. Athanasius
   says, for example: "Satan, because there is no truth in him, breaks in
   with axe and sword. But the Saviour is gentle, and forces no one, to
   whom he comes, but knocks and speaks to the soul: Open to me, my
   sister? [58] If we open to him, he enters; but if we will not, he
   departs. For the truth is not preached by sword and dungeon, by the
   might of an army, but by persuasion and exhortation. How can there be
   persuasion where fear of the emperor is uppermost? How exhortation,
   where the contradicter has to expect banishment and death?" With equal
   truth Hilary confronts the emperor with the wrong of his course, in the
   words: "With the gold of the state thou burdenest the sanctuary of God,
   and what is torn from the temples, or gained by confiscation, or
   extorted by punishment, thou obtrudest upon God."

   By the laws of history the forced Christianity of Constantius must
   provoke a reaction of heathenism. And such reaction in fact ensued,
   though only for a brief period immediately after this emperor's death.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [57] So Julius Firmicus Maternus, author of a tract De errore
   profanarum religionum, written about 348 and dedicated to the emperors
   Constantius and Constans.

   [58] Song of Sol. v. 2.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 4. Julian the Apostate, and the Reaction of Paganism. a.d. 361-363.

   SOURCES.

   These agree in all the principal facts, even to unimportant details,
   but differ entirely in spirit and in judgment; Julian himself
   exhibiting the vanity of self-praise, Libanius and Zosimus the extreme
   of passionate admiration, Gregory and Cyril the opposite extreme of
   hatred and abhorrence, Ammianus Marcellinus a mixture of praise and
   censure.

   1. Heathen sources: Juliani imperatoris Opera, quae supersunt omnia,
   ed. by Petavius, Par. 1583; and more completely by Ezech. Spanhemius,
   Lips. 1696, 2 vols. fol. in one (Spanheim gives the Greek original with
   a good Latin version, and the Ten Books of Cyril of Alex. against
   Julian). We have from Julian: Misopogon (Misopwvgon, the Beard-hater, a
   defence of himself against the accusations of the Antiochians);
   Caesares (two satires on his predecessors); eight Orationes; sixty-five
   Epistolae (the latter separately and most completely edited, with
   shorter fragments, by Heyler, Mog. 1828); and Fragments of his three or
   seven Books kata Christianonin the Reply of Cyril. Libanius: Epitaphios
   ep Iouliano, in Lib. Opp. ed. Reiske, Altenb. 1791-97. 4 vols.
   Mamertinus: Gratiarum actio Juliano. The relevant passages in the
   heathen historians Ammianus Marcellinus (I.c. lib. xxi-xxv. 3), Zosimus
   and Eunapius.

   2. Christian Sources (all in Greek): the early church historians,
   Socrates (l. iii.), Sozomen (I. v. and vi.), Theodoret (I. iii.).
   Gregory Naz.: Orationes invectivae in Jul. duae, written some six
   months after the death of Julian (Opp. tom. i.). Cyril of Alex.: Contra
   impium Jul. libri x. (in the Opp. Cyr., ed. J. Aubert, Par. 1638, tom.
   vi., and in Spanheim's ed. of the works of Julian).

   LITERATURE.

   Tillemont: Memoires, etc., vol. vii. p. 322-423 (Venice ed.), and
   Histoire des empereurs Rom. Par. 1690 sqq., vol. iv. 483-576. Abbé De
   la Bleterie: Vie de l'empereur Julien. Amst. 1735. 2 vols. The same in
   English, Lond. 1746. W. Warburton: Julian. Lond. 3d ed. 1763. Nath.
   Lardner: Works, ed. Dr. Kippis, vol. vii. p. 581 sqq. Gibbon: l.c. ch.
   xxii.-xxiv., particularly xxiii. Neander: Julian u. sein Zeitalter.
   Leipz. 1812 (his first historical production), and Allg. K. G., iii.
   (2d ed. 1846), p. 76-148. English ed. Torrey, ii. 37-67. Jondot (R.C.):
   Histoire de l'empereur Julien. 1817, 2 vols. C. H. Van Herwerden: De
   Juliano imper. religionis Christ. hoste, eodemque vindice. Lugd. Bat.
   1827. G. F. Wiggers: Jul. der Abtrünnige. Leipz. 1837 (in Illgen's
   Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol.). H. Schulze: De philos. et moribus Jul.
   Strals. 1839. D. Fr. Strauss (author of the mythological "Leben Jesu"):
   Der Romantiker auf dem Thron der Caesaren, oder Julian der Abtr. Manh.
   1847 (containing a clear survey of the various opinions concerning
   Julian from Libanius and Gregory to Gibbon, Schlosser, Neander, and
   Ullmann, but hiding a political aim against King Frederick William IV.
   of Prussia). J. E. Auer (R.C.): Kaiser Jul. der Abtr. im Kampf mit den
   Kirchenvaetern seiner Zeit. Wien, 1855. W. Mangold: Jul. der Abtr.
   Stuttg. 1862. C. Semisch: Jul. der Abtr. Bresl. 1862. F. Lübker:
   Julians Kampf u. Ende. Hamb. 1864.

   Notwithstanding this great conversion of the government and of public
   sentiment, the pagan religion still had many adherents, and retained an
   important influence through habit and superstition over the rude
   peasantry, and through literature and learned schools of philosophy and
   rhetoric at Alexandria, Athens, &c., over the educated classes. And
   now, under the lead of one of the most talented, energetic, and notable
   Roman emperors, it once more made a systematic and vigorous effort to
   recover its ascendency in the Roman empire. But in the entire failure
   of this effort heathenism itself gave the strongest proof that it had
   outlived itself forever. It now became evident during the brief, but
   interesting and instructive episode of Julian's reign, that the policy
   of Constantine was entirely judicious and consistent with the course of
   history itself, and that Christianity really carried all the moral
   vigor of the present and all the hopes of the future. At the same time
   this temporary persecution was a just punishment and wholesome
   discipline for a secularized church and clergy. [59]

   Julian, surnamed the Apostate (Apostata), a nephew of Constantine the
   Great and cousin of Constantius, was born in the year 331, and was
   therefore only six years old when his uncle died. The general slaughter
   of his kindred, not excepting his father, at the change of the throne,
   could beget neither love for Constantius nor respect for his court
   Christianity. He afterwards ascribed his escape to the special favor of
   the old gods. He was systematically spoiled by false education and made
   the enemy of that very religion which pedantic teachers attempted to
   force upon his free and independent mind, and which they so poorly
   recommended by their lives. We have a striking parallel in more recent
   history in the case of Frederick the Great of Prussia. Julian was
   jealously watched by the emperor, and kept in rural retirement almost
   like a prisoner. With his step-brother Gallus, he received a nominally
   Christian training under the direction of the Arian bishop Eusebius of
   Nicomedia and several eunuchs; he was baptized; even educated for the
   clerical order, and ordained a Lector. [60] He prayed, fasted,
   celebrated the memory of the martyrs, paid the usual reverence to the
   bishops, besought the blessing of hermits, and read the Scriptures in
   the church of Nicomedia. Even his plays must wear the hue of devotion.
   But this despotic and mechanical force-work of a repulsively austere
   and fiercely polemic type of Christianity roused the intelligent,
   wakeful, and vigorous spirit of Julian to rebellion, and drove him over
   towards the heathen side. The Arian pseudo-Christianity of Constantius
   produced the heathen anti-Christianity of Julian; and the latter was a
   well-deserved punishment of the former. With enthusiasm and with
   untiring diligence the young prince studied Homer, Plato, Aristotle,
   and the Neo-Platonists. The partial prohibition of such reading gave it
   double zest. He secretly obtained the lectures of the celebrated
   rhetorician Libanius, afterwards his eulogist, whose productions,
   however, represent the degeneracy of the heathen literature in that
   day, covering emptiness with a pompous and tawdry style, attractive
   only to a vitiated taste. He became acquainted by degrees with the most
   eminent representatives of heathenism, particularly the Neo-Platonic
   philosophers, rhetoricians, and priests, like Libanius, Aedesius,
   Maximus, and Chrysanthius. These confirmed him in his superstitions by
   sophistries and sorceries of every kind. He gradually became the secret
   head of the heathen party. Through the favor and mediation of the
   empress Eusebia he visited for some months the schools of Athens (a.d.
   355), where he was initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, and thus
   completed his transition to the Grecian idolatry.

   This heathenism, however, was not a simple, spontaneous growth; it was
   all an artificial and morbid production. It was the heathenism of the
   Neo-Platonic, pantheistic eclecticism, a strange mixture of philosophy,
   poesy, and superstition, and, in Julian at least, in great part an
   imitation or caricature of Christianity. It sought to spiritualize and
   revive the old mythology by uniting with it oriental theosophemes and a
   few Christian ideas; taught a higher, abstract unity above the
   multiplicity of the national gods, genii, heroes, and natural powers;
   believed in immediate communications and revelations of the gods
   through dreams, visions, oracles, entrails of sacrifices, prodigies;
   and stood in league with all kinds of magical and theurgic arts. [61]
   Julian himself, with all his philosophical intelligence, credited the
   most insipid legends of the gods, or gave them a deeper, mystic meaning
   by the most arbitrary allegorical interpretation. He was in intimate
   personal intercourse with Jupiter, Minerva, Apollo, Hercules, who paid
   their nocturnal visits to his heated fancy, and assured him of their
   special protection. And he practised the art of divination as a master.
   [62] Among the various divinities he worshipped with peculiar devotion
   the great king Helios, or the god of the sun, whose servant he called
   himself, and whose ethereal light attracted him even in tender
   childhood with magic force. He regarded him as the centre of the
   universe, from which light, life, and salvation proceed upon all
   creatures. [63] In this view of a supreme divinity he made an approach
   to the Christian monotheism, but substituted an airy myth and
   pantheistic fancy for the only true and living God and the personal
   historical Christ.

   His moral character corresponds with the preposterous nature of this
   system. With all his brilliant talents and stoical virtues, he wanted
   the genuine simplicity and naturalness, which are the foundation of all
   true greatness of mind and character. As his worship of Helios was a
   shadowy reflection of the Christian monotheism, and so far an
   involuntary tribute to the religion he opposed, so in his artificial
   and ostentatious asceticism we can only see a caricature of the
   ecclesiastical monasticism of the age which he so deeply despised for
   its humility and spirituality. He was full of affectation, vanity,
   sophistry, loquacity, and a master in the art of dissimulation.
   Everything he said or wrote was studied and calculated for effect.
   Instead of discerning the spirit of the age and putting himself at the
   head of the current of true progress, he identified himself with a
   party of no vigor nor promise, and thus fell into a false and untenable
   position, at variance with the mission of a ruler. Great minds, indeed,
   are always more or less at war with their age, as we may see in the
   reformers, in the apostles, nay, in Christ himself. But their
   antagonism proceeds from a clear knowledge of the real wants and a
   sincere devotion to the best interests of the age; it is all
   progressive and reformatory, and at last carries the deeper spirit of
   the age with itself, and raises it to a higher level. The antagonism of
   Julian, starting with a radical misconception of the tendency of
   history and animated by selfish ambition, was one of retrogression and
   reaction, and in addition, was devoted to a bad cause. He had all the
   faults, and therefore deserved the tragic fate, of a fanatical
   reactionist.

   His apostasy from Christianity, to which he was probably never at heart
   committed, Julian himself dates as early as his twentieth year, a.d.
   351. But while Constantius lived, he concealed his pagan sympathies
   with consummate hypocrisy, publicly observed Christian ceremonies,
   while secretly sacrificing to Jupiter and Helios, kept the feast of
   Epiphany in the church at Vienne so late as January, 361, and praised
   the emperor in the most extravagant style, though he thoroughly hated
   him, and after his death all the more bitterly mocked him. [64] For ten
   years he kept the mask. After December, 355, the student of books
   astonished the world with brilliant military and executive powers as
   Caesar in Gaul, which was at that time heavily threatened by the German
   barbarians; he won the enthusiastic love of the soldiers, and received
   from them the dignity of Augustus. Then he raised the standard of
   rebellion against his suspicious and envious imperial cousin and
   brother-in-law, and in 361 openly declared himself a friend of the
   gods. By the sudden death of Constantius in the same year he became
   sole head of the Roman empire, and in December, as the only remaining
   heir of the house of Constantine, [65] made his entry into
   Constantinople amidst universal applause and rejoicing over escape from
   civil war.

   He immediately gave himself, with the utmost zeal, to the duties of his
   high station, unweariedly active as prince, general, judge, orator,
   high-priest, correspondent, and author. He sought to unite the fame of
   an Alexander, a Marcus Aurelius, a Plato, and a Diogenes in himself.
   His only recreation was a change of labor. He would use at once his
   hand in writing, his ear in hearing, and his voice in speaking. He
   considered his whole time due to his empire and the culture of his own
   mind. The eighteen short months of his reign Dec. 361-June 363)
   comprehend the plans of a life-long administration and most of his
   literary works. He practised the strictest economy in the public
   affairs, banished all useless luxury from his court, and dismissed with
   one decree whole hosts of barbers, cup-bearers, cooks, masters of
   ceremonies, and other superfluous officers, with whom the palace
   swarmed, but surrounded himself instead with equally useless pagan
   mystics, sophists, jugglers, theurgists, soothsayers, babblers, and
   scoffers, who now streamed from all quarters to the court. In striking
   contrast with his predecessors, he maintained the simplicity of a
   philosopher and an ascetic in his manner of life, and gratified his
   pride and vanity with contempt of the pomp and pleasures of the
   imperial purple. He lived chiefly on vegetable diet, abstaining now
   from this food, now from that, according to the taste of the god or
   goddess to whom the day was consecrated. He wore common clothing,
   usually slept on the floor, let his beard and nails grow, and, like the
   strict anachorets of Egypt, neglected the laws of decency and
   cleanliness. [66] This cynic eccentricity and vain ostentation
   certainly spoiled his reputation for simplicity and self-denial, and
   made him ridiculous. It evinced, also, not so much the boldness and
   wisdom of a reformer, as the pedantry and folly of a reactionist. In
   military and executive talent and personal bravery he was not inferior
   to Constantine; while in mind and literary culture he far excelled him,
   as well as in energy and moral self-control; and, doubtless to his own
   credit, he closed his public career at the age at which his uncle's
   began; but he entirely lacked the clear, sound common sense of his
   great predecessor, and that practical statesmanship, which discerns the
   wants of the age, and acts according to them. He had more uncommon
   sense than common sense, and the latter is often even more important
   than the former, and indispensable to a good practical statesman. But
   his greatest fault as a ruler was his utterly false position towards
   the paramount question of his time: that of religion. This was the
   cause of that complete failure which made his reign as trackless as a
   meteor.

   The ruling passion of Julian, and the soul of his short but most
   active, remarkable, and in its negative results instructive reign, was
   fanatical love of the pagan religion and bitter hatred of the
   Christian, at a time when the former had already forever given up to
   the latter the reins of government in the world. He considered it the
   great mission of his life to restore the worship of the gods, and to
   reduce the religion of Jesus first to a contemptible sect, and at last,
   if possible, to utter extinction from the earth. To this he believed
   himself called by the gods themselves, and in this faith he was
   confirmed by theurgic arts, visions, and dreams. To this end all the
   means, which talent, zeal, and power could command, were applied; and
   the failure must be attributed solely to the intrinsic folly and
   impracticability of the end itself.

   I. To look, first, at the positive side of his plan, the restoration
   and reformation of heathenism:

   He reinstated, in its ancient splendor, the worship of the gods at the
   public expense; called forth hosts of priests from concealment;
   conferred upon them all their former privileges, and showed them every
   honor; enjoined upon the soldiers and civil officers attendance at the
   forsaken temples and altars; forgot no god or goddess, though himself
   specially devoted to the worship of Apollo, or the sun; and
   notwithstanding his parsimony in other respects, caused the rarest
   birds and whole herds of bulls and lambs to be sacrificed, until the
   continuance of the species became a subject of concern. [67] He removed
   the cross and the monogram of Christ from the coins and standards, and
   replaced the former pagan symbols. He surrounded the statues and
   portraits of the emperors with the signs of idolatry, that every one
   might be compelled to bow before the gods, who would pay the emperors
   due respect. He advocated images of the gods on the same grounds on
   which afterwards the Christian iconolaters defended the images of the
   saints. If you love the emperor, if you love your father, says he, you
   like to see his portrait; so the friend of the gods loves to look upon
   their images, by which he is pervaded with reverence for the invisible
   gods, who are looking down upon him.

   Julian led the way himself with a complete example. He discovered on
   every occasion the utmost zeal for the heathen religion, and performed,
   with the most scrupulous devotion, the offices of a pontifex maximus,
   which had been altogether neglected, although not formally abolished,
   under his two predecessors. Every morning and evening he sacrificed to
   the rising and setting sun, or the supreme light-god; every night, to
   the moon and the stars; every day, to some other divinity. Says
   Libanius, his heathen admirer: "He received the rising sun with blood,
   and attended him again with blood at his setting." As he could not go
   abroad so often as he would, he turned his palace into a temple and
   erected altars in his garden, which was kept purer than most chapels.
   "Wherever there was a temple," says the same writer, "whether in the
   city or on the hill or the mountain top, no matter how rough, or
   difficult of access, he ran to it." He prostrated himself devoutly
   before the altars and the images, not allowing the most violent storm
   to prevent him. Several times in a day, surrounded by priests and
   dancing women, he sacrificed a hundred bulls, himself furnishing the
   wood and kindling the flames. He used the knife himself, and as
   haruspex searched with his own hand the secrets of the future in the
   reeking entrails.

   But his zeal found no echo, and only made him ridiculous in the eyes of
   cultivated heathens themselves. He complains repeatedly of the
   indifference of his party, and accuses one of his priests of a secret
   league with Christian bishops. The spectators at his sacrifices came
   not from devotion, but from curiosity, and grieved the devout emperor
   by their rounds of applause, as if he were simply a theatrical actor of
   religion. Often there were no spectators at all. When he endeavored to
   restore the oracle of Apollo Daphneus in the famous cypress grove at
   Antioch, and arranged for a magnificent procession, with libation,
   dances, and incense, he found in the temple one solitary old priest,
   and this priest ominously offered in sacrifice--a goose. [68]

   At the same time, however, Julian sought to renovate and transform
   heathenism by incorporating with it the morals of Christianity; vainly
   thinking thus to bring it back to its original purity. In this he
   himself unwittingly and unwillingly bore witness to the poverty of the
   heathen religion, and paid the highest tribute to the Christian; and
   the Christians for this reason not inaptly called him an "ape of
   Christianity."

   In the first place, he proposed to improve the irreclaimable priesthood
   after the model of the Christian clergy. The priests, as true mediators
   between the gods and men, should be constantly in the temples, should
   occupy themselves with holy things, should study no immoral or
   skeptical books of the school of Epicurus and Pyrrho, but the works of
   Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, Chrysippus, and Zeno; they should visit no
   taverns nor theatres, should pursue no dishonorable trade, should give
   alms, practise hospitality, live in strict chastity and temperance,
   wear simple clothing, but in their official functions always appear in
   the costliest garments and most imposing dignity. He borrowed almost
   every feature of the then prevalent idea of the Christian priesthood,
   and applied it to the polytheistic religion. [69] Then, he borrowed
   from the constitution and worship of the church a hierarchical system
   of orders, and a sort of penitential discipline, with excommunication,
   absolution, and restoration, besides a fixed ritual embracing didactic
   and musical elements. Mitred priests in purple were to edify the people
   regularly with sermons; that is, with allegorical expositions and
   practical applications of tasteless and immoral mythological stories!
   Every temple was to have a well arranged choir, and the congregation
   its responses. And finally, Julian established in different provinces
   monasteries, nunneries, and hospitals for the sick, for orphans, and
   for foreigners without distinction of religion, appropriated to them
   considerable sums from the public treasury, and at the same time,
   though fruitlessly, invited voluntary contributions. He made the
   noteworthy concession, that the heathens did not help even their own
   brethren in faith; while the Jews never begged, and "the godless
   Galileans," as he malignantly styled the Christians, supplied not only
   their own, but even the heathen poor, and thus aided the worst of
   causes by a good practice.

   But of course all these attempts to regenerate heathenism by foreign
   elements were utterly futile. They were like galvanizing a decaying
   corpse, or grafting fresh scions on a dead trunk, sowing good seed on a
   rock, or pouring new wine into old bottles, bursting the bottles and
   wasting the wine.

   II. The negative side of Julian's plan was the suppression and final
   extinction of Christianity.

   In this he proceeded with extraordinary sagacity. He abstained from
   bloody persecution, because he would not forego the credit of
   philosophical toleration, nor give the church the glory of a new
   martyrdom. A history of three centuries also had proved that violent
   measures were fruitless. According to Libanius it was a principle with
   him, that fire and sword cannot change a man's faith, and that
   persecution only begets hypocrites and martyrs. Finally, he doubtless
   perceived that the Christians were too numerous to be assailed by a
   general persecution without danger of a bloody civil war. Hence he
   oppressed the church "gently," [70] under show of equity and universal
   toleration. He persecuted not so much the Christians as Christianity,
   by endeavoring to draw off its confessors. He thought to gain the
   result of persecution without incurring the personal reproach and the
   public danger of persecution itself. His disappointments, however,
   increased his bitterness, and had he returned victorious from the
   Persian war, he would probably have resorted to open violence. In fact,
   Gregory Nazianzen and Sozomen, and some heathen writers also, tell of
   local persecutions in the provinces, particularly at Anthusa and
   Alexandria, with which the emperor is, at least indirectly, to be
   charged. His officials acted in those cases, not under public orders
   indeed, but according to the secret wish of Julian, who ignored their
   illegal proceedings as long as he could, and then discovered his real
   views by lenient censure and substantial acquittal of the offending
   magistrates.

   He first, therefore, employed against the Christians of all parties and
   sects the policy of toleration, in hope of their destroying each other
   by internal controversies. He permitted the orthodox bishops and all
   other clergy, who had been banished under Constantius, to return to
   their dioceses, and left Arians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Macedonians,
   Donatists, and so on, to themselves. He affected compassion for the
   "poor, blind, deluded Galileans, who forsook the most glorious
   privilege of man, the worship of the immortal gods, and instead of them
   worshipped dead men and dead men's bones." He once even suffered
   himself to be insulted by a blind bishop, Maris of Chalcedon, who, when
   reminded by him, that the Galilean God could not restore his eyesight,
   answered: "I thank my God for my blindness, which spares me the painful
   sight of such an impious Apostate as thou." He afterwards, however,
   caused the bishop to be severely punished. [71] So in Antioch, also, he
   bore with philosophic equanimity the ridicule of the Christian
   populace, but avenged himself on the inhabitants of the city by
   unsparing satire in the Misopogon. His whole bearing towards the
   Christians was instinct with bitter hatred and accompanied with
   sarcastic mockery. [72] This betrays itself even in the contemptuous
   term, Galileans, which he constantly applies to them after the fashion
   of the Jews, and which he probably also commanded to be given them by
   others. [73] He considered them a sect of fanatics contemptible to men
   and hateful to the gods, and as atheists in open war with all that was
   sacred and divine in the world. [74] He sometimes had representatives
   of different parties dispute in his presence, and then exclaimed: "No
   wild beasts are so fierce and irreconcilable as the Galilean
   sectarians." When he found that toleration was rather profitable than
   hurtful to the church, and tended to soften the vehemence of doctrinal
   controversies, he proceeded, for example, to banish Athanasius, who was
   particularly offensive to him, from Alexandria, and even from Egypt,
   calling this greatest man of his age an insignificant manikin, [75] and
   reviling him with vulgar language, because through his influence many
   prominent heathens, especially heathen women, passed over to
   Christianity. His toleration, therefore, was neither that of genuine
   humanity, nor that of religious indifferentism, but a hypocritical mask
   for a fanatical love of heathenism and a bitter hatred of Christianity.

   This appears in his open partiality and injustice against the
   Christians. His liberal patronage of heathenism was in itself an injury
   to Christianity. Nothing gave him greater joy than an apostasy, and he
   held out the temptation of splendid reward; thus himself employing the
   impure means of proselyting, for which he reproached the Christians.
   Once he even advocated conversion by violent measures. While he called
   heathens to all the higher offices, and, in case of their palpable
   disobedience, inflicted very mild punishment, if any at all, the
   Christians came to be everywhere disregarded, and their complaints
   dismissed from the tribunal with a mocking reference to their Master's
   precept, to give their enemy their cloak also with their coat, and turn
   the other cheek to his blows. [76] They were removed from military and
   civil office, deprived of all their former privileges, oppressed with
   taxes, and compelled to restore without indemnity the temple property,
   with all their own improvements on it, and to contribute to the support
   of the public idolatry. Upon occasion of a controversy between the
   Arians and the orthodox at Edessa, Julian confiscated the church
   property and distributed it among his soldiers, under the sarcastic
   pretence of facilitating the Christians' entrance into the kingdom of
   heaven, from which, according to the doctrine of their religion (comp.
   Matt. xix. 23, 24), riches might exclude them.

   Equally unjust and tyrannical was the law, which placed all the state
   schools under the direction of heathens, and prohibited the Christians
   teaching the sciences and the arts. [77] Julian would thus deny
   Christian youth the advantages of education, and compel them either to
   sink in ignorance and barbarism, or to imbibe with the study of the
   classics in the heathen schools the principles of idolatry. In his view
   the Hellenic writings, especially the works of the poets, were not only
   literary, but also religious documents to which the heathens had an
   exclusive claim, and he regarded Christianity irreconcilable with
   genuine human culture. The Galileans, says he in ridicule, should
   content themselves with expounding Matthew and Luke in their churches,
   instead of profaning the glorious Greek authors. For it is preposterous
   and ungrateful, that they should study the writings of the classics,
   and yet despise the gods, whom the authors revered; since the gods were
   in fact the authors and guides of the minds of a Homer, a Hesiod, a
   Demosthenes, a Thucydides, an Isocrates, and a Lysias, and these
   writers consecrated their works to Mercury or the muses. [78] Hence he
   hated especially the learned church teachers, Basil, Gregory of
   Nazianzen, Apollinaris of Laodicea, who applied the classical culture
   to the refutation of heathenism and the defence of Christianity. To
   evade his interdict, the two Apollinaris produced with all haste
   Christian imitations of Homer, Pindar, Euripides, and Menander, which
   were considered by Sozomen equal to the originals, but soon passed into
   oblivion. Gregory also wrote the tragedy of "The Suffering Christ," and
   several hymns, which still exist. Thus these fathers bore witness to
   the indispensableness of classical literature for a higher Christian
   education, and the church has ever since maintained the same view. [79]

   Julian further sought to promote his cause by literary assaults upon
   the Christian religion; himself writing, shortly before his death, and
   in the midst of his preparations for the Persian campaign, a bitter
   work against it, of which we shall speak more fully in a subsequent
   section. [80]

   3. To the same hostile design against Christianity is to be referred
   the favor of Julian to its old hereditary enemy, Judaism.

   The emperor, in an official document affected reverence for that
   ancient popular religion, and sympathy with its adherents, praised
   their firmness under misfortune, and condemned their oppressors. He
   exempted the Jews from burdensome taxation, and encouraged them even to
   return to the holy land and to rebuild the temple on Moriah in its
   original splendor. He appropriated considerable sums to this object
   from the public treasury, intrusted his accomplished minister Alypius
   with the supervision of the building, and promised, if he should return
   victorious from the Persian war, to honor with his own presence the
   solemnities of reconsecration and the restoration of the Mosaic
   sacrificial worship. [81]

   His real purpose in this undertaking was certainly not to advance the
   Jewish religion; for in his work against the Christians he speaks with
   great contempt of the Old Testament, and ranks Moses and Solomon far
   below the pagan lawgivers and philosophers. His object in the
   rebuilding of the temple was rather, in the first place, to enhance the
   splendor of his reign, and thus gratify his personal vanity; and then
   most probably to put to shame the prophecy of Jesus respecting the
   destruction of the temple (which, however, was actually fulfilled three
   hundred years before once for all), to deprive the Christians of their
   most popular argument against the Jews, and to break the power of the
   new religion in Jerusalem. [82]

   The Jews now poured from east and west into the holy city of their
   fathers, which from the time of Hadrian they had been forbidden to
   visit, and entered with fanatical zeal upon the great national
   religious work, in hope of the speedy irruption of the Messianic reign
   and the fulfilment of all the prophecies. Women, we are told, brought
   their costly ornaments, turned them into silver shovels and spades, and
   carried even the earth and stones of the holy spot in their silken
   aprons. But the united power of heathen emperor and Jewish nation was
   insufficient to restore a work which had been overthrown by the
   judgment of God. Repeated attempts at the building were utterly
   frustrated, as even a contemporary heathen historian of conceded
   credibility relates, by fiery eruptions from on subterranean vaults;
   [83] and, perhaps, as Christian writers add, by a violent whirlwind,
   lightning, earthquake, and miraculous signs, especially a luminous
   cross, in the heavens, [84] so that the workmen either perished in the
   flames, or fled from the devoted spot in terror and despair. Thus,
   instead of depriving the Christians of a support of their faith, Julian
   only furnished them a new argument in the ruins of this fruitless
   labor.

   The providential frustration of this project is a symbol of the whole
   reign of Julian, which soon afterward sank into an early grave. As
   Caesar he had conquered the barbarian enemies of the Roman empire in
   the West; and now he proposed, as ruler of the world, to humble its
   enemies in the East, and by the conquest of Persia to win the renown of
   a second Alexander. He proudly rejected all proposals of peace; crossed
   the Tigris at the head of an army of sixty-five thousand men, after
   wintering in Antioch, and after solemn consultation of the oracle; took
   several fortified towns in Mesopotamia; exposed himself to every
   hardship and peril of war; restored at the same time, wherever he
   could, the worship of the heathen gods; but brought the army into a
   most critical position, and, in an unimportant nocturnal skirmish,
   received from a hostile arrow a mortal wound. He died soon after, on
   the 27th of June, 363, in the thirty-second year of his life; according
   to heathen testimony, in the proud repose and dignity of a Stoic
   philosopher, conversing of the glory of the soul (the immortality of
   which, however, he considered at best an uncertain opinion); [85] but
   according to later and somewhat doubtful Christian accounts, with the
   hopeless exclamation: "Galilean, thou hast conquered!" [86] The parting
   address to his friends, which Ammianus puts into his mouth, is
   altogether characteristic. It reminds one of the last hours of
   Socrates, without the natural simplicity of the original, and with a
   strong admixture of self-complacence and theatrical affectation. His
   body was taken, at his own direction, to Tarsus, the birthplace of the
   apostle Paul, whom he hated more than any other apostle, and a monument
   was erected to him there, with a simple inscription, which calls him a
   good ruler and a brave warrior, but says nothing of his religion.

   So died, in the prime of life, a prince, who darkened his brilliant
   military, executive, and literary talents, and a rare energy, by
   fanatical zeal for a false religion and opposition to the true;
   perverted them to a useless and wicked end; and earned, instead of
   immortal honor, the shame of an unsuccessful Apostate. Had he lived
   longer, he would probably have plunged the empire into the sad
   distraction of a religious civil war. The Christians were generally
   expecting a bloody persecution in case of his successful return from
   the Persian war. We need, therefore, the less wonder that they abhorred
   his memory. At Antioch they celebrated his death by festal dancings in
   the churches and theatres. [87] Even the celebrated divine and orator,
   Gregory Nazianzen, compared him to Pharaoh, Ahab, and Nebuchadnezzar.
   [88] It has been reserved for the more impartial historiography of
   modern times to do justice to his nobler qualities, and to endeavor to
   excuse, or at least to account for his utterly false position toward
   Christianity, by his perverted education, the despotism of his
   predecessor, and the imperfections of the church in his day.

   With Julian himself fell also his artificial, galvanized heathenism,
   "like the baseless fabric of a vision, leaving no wreck behind," save
   the great doctrine, that it is impossible to swim against the stream of
   history or to stop the progress of Christianity. The heathen
   philosophers and soothsayers, who had basked in his favor, fell back
   into obscurity. In the dispersion of their dream they found no comfort
   from their superstition. Libanius charges the guilt upon his own gods,
   who suffered Constantius to reign twenty years, and Julian hardly
   twenty months. But the Christians could learn from it, what Gregory
   Nazianzen had said in the beginning of this reign, that the church had
   far more to fear from enemies within, than from without.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [59] So Gregory of Naz. regarded it, and Tillemont justly remarks, Mem.
   vii. 322: "Le grand nombre de pechez dont beaucoup de Chrétiens
   estoient coupables, fut cause que Dieu donna a ce prince la puissance
   imperials pour les punir; et sa malice fut comme une verge entre les
   mains de Dieu pour les corriger."

   [60] Jul. ad Athen. p. 271; Socr. iii. 1; Sozom. v. 2; Theod. iii. 2.

   [61] Comp. vol. i. § 61.

   [62] Libanius says of him, Epit. p. 582: ... manteon te tois aristois
   chromenos, autos te on oudamon en te techne deuteros. Ammanius
   Marcellinus calls him, xxv. 4, praesagiorum sciscitationi nimiae
   deditus, superstitiosus magis quam sacrorum legitimus observator. Comp.
   Sozom. v. 2.

   [63] Comp. his fourth Oratio, which is devoted to the praise of Helios.

   [64] Comp. Jul. Orat. i. in Constantii laudes; Epist. ad Athenienses,
   p. 270; Caesares, p. 335 sq. Even heathen authors concede his
   dissimulation, as Ammianus Marc. xxi. 2, comp. xxii. 5, and Libanius,
   who excuses him with the plea of regard to his security, Opp. p. 528,
   ed. Reiske.

   [65] His older brother, Gallus, for some time emperor at Antioch, had
   already been justly deposed by Constantius in 854, and beheaded, for
   his entire incapacity and his merciless cruelty.

   [66] In the Misopogon (from miseo and pogon, the beard-hater, i.e.
   hater of bearded philosophers), his witty apology to the refined
   Antiochians for his philosophical beard, p. 338 sq., he boasts of this
   cynic coarseness, and describes, with great complacence, his long
   nails, his ink-stained hands, his rough, uncombed beard, inhabited
   (horribile dictu) by certain theria. It should not be forgotten,
   however, that contemporary writers give him the credit of a strict
   chastity, which raises him far above most heathen princes, and which
   furnishes another proof to the involuntary influence of Christian
   asceticism upon his life. Libanius asserts in his panegyric, that
   Julian, before his brief married life, and after the death of his wife,
   a sister of Constantius, never knew a woman; and Namertinus calls his
   lectulus, "Vestalium toris purior." Add to this the testimony of the
   honest Ammianus Marcellinus, and the silence of Christian antagonists.
   Comp. Gibbon, c. xxii. note 50; and Carwithen and Lyall: Hist. of the
   Chr. Ch., etc. p. 54. On the other hand, the Christians accused him of
   all sorts of secret crimes; for instance, the butchering of boys and
   girls (Gregor. Orat. iii. p. 91, and Theodor. iii. 26, 27), which was
   probably an unfounded inference from his fanatical zeal for bloody
   sacrifices and divinations.

   [67] Ammianus Marc. xxv. 4 ... innumeras sine parsimonia pecudes
   mactans ut aestemaretur, si revertisset de Parthis, boves jam
   defuturos.

   [68] Misopog. p. 362 sq., where Julian himself relates this ludicrous
   scene, and vents his anger at the Antiochians for squandering the rich
   incomes of the temple upon Christianity and worldly pleasures. Dr.
   Baur, l.c. p. 17, justly remarks on Julian's zeal for idolatry: "Seine
   ganze persönliche Erscheinung, der Mangel an innerer Haltung in seinem
   Benehmen gegen Heiden und Christen, die stete Unruhe und schwärmerische
   Aufregung, in welcher er sich befand, wenn er von Tempel zu Tempel
   eilte, auf allen Altären opferte und nichts unversucht liess, um den
   heidnischen Cultus, dessen höchstes Vorbild er selbst als Pontifex
   maximum sein wollte, in seinem vollen Glanz und Gepränge, mit alten
   seinen Ceremonien und Mysterien wieder herzustellen, macht einen
   Eindruck, der es kaum verkennen lässt, wie wenig er sich selbst das
   Unnatürliche und Erfolglose eines solchen Strebens verbergen konnte."

   [69] Julian's views on the heathen priests are laid down especially in
   his 49th Epistle to Ursacius, the highpriest of Gaul, p. 429, and in
   the fragment of an oration, p. 300 sqq., ed. Spanh. Ullmann, in his
   work on Gregory of Nazianzen, p. 527 sqq., draws an interesting
   parallel between Gregory's and Julian's ideal of a priest.

   [70] Epieikos ebia zeto, as Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. iv., expresses it.

   [71] Socrates: H. E. iii. 12.

   [72] Gibbon well says, ch. xxiii.: "He affected to pity the unhappy
   Christians, but his pity was degraded by contempt, his contempt was
   embittered by hatred; and the sentiments of Julian were expressed in a
   style of sarcastic wit, which inflicts a deep and deadly wound whenever
   it issues from the mouth of a sovereign."

   [73] Perhaps there lay at the bottom of this also a secret fear of the
   name of Christ, as Warburton (p. 35) suggests; since the Neo-Platonists
   believed in the mysterious virtue of names.

   [74] Asebeis, dussebeis, atheoi. Their religion he calls a moria or
   aponoia. Comp. Ep. 7 (ap. Heyler, p. 190).

   [75] Athropiskos euteles.

   [76] Matt. v. 89, 40.

   [77] Gregory of Naz., Orat. iv., censures the emperor bitterly for
   forbidding the Christians what was the common property of all rational
   men, as if it were the exclusive possession of the Greeks. Even the
   heathen Ammianus Marcellinus, xxii. 10, condemns this measure: "Illud
   autem erat inclemens, obruendum perenni silentio, quod arcebat docere
   magistros rhetoricos et grammaticos, ritus Christiani cultores." Gibbon
   is equally decided. Directly, Julian forbade the Christians only to
   teach, but indirectly also to learn, the classical literature; as they
   were of course unwilling to go to heathen schools.

   [78] Epist. 42.

   [79] Dr. Baur (l.c. p. 42) unjustly charges the fathers with the
   contradiction of making use of the classics as necessary means of
   education, and yet of condemning heathenism as a work of Satan. But
   this was only the one side, which has its element of truth, especially
   as applied to the heathen religion; while on the other side they
   acknowledged, with Justin M., Clement and Origen, the working of the
   divine Logos in the Hellenic philosophy and poetry preparing the way
   for Christianity. The indiscriminate condemnation of classical
   literature dates from a later period, from Gregory I.

   [80] See below, § 9.

   [81] Jul. Epist. 25, which is addressed to the Jews, and is mentioned
   also by Sozomen, v. 22.

   [82] Gibbon, ch. xxiii.: "The restoration of the Jewish temple was
   secretly connected with the ruin of the Christian church."

   [83] Julian himself seems to admit the failure of the work, but, more
   prudently, is silent as to the cause, in a fragment of an epistle or
   oration, p. 295, ed. Spanh., according to the usual interpretation of
   this passage. He here asks: Ti peri tou neo phusousi, tou par autois,
   triton anatrapentos , egeiromenou de oude nun:: "What will they [i.e.,
   the Jewish prophets] say of their own temple, which has been three
   times destroyed, and is not even now restored?" "This I have said (he
   continues) with no wish to reproach them, for I myself, at so late a
   day, had intended to rebuild it for the honor of him who was worshipped
   there." He probably saw in the event a sign of the divine displeasure
   with the religion of the Jews, or an accidental misfortune, but
   intended, after his return from the Persian war, to attempt the work
   anew. It is by no means certain, however, that the threefold
   destruction of the temple here spoken of refers to Julian's own reign.
   He may have meant, and probably did mean, the destruction by the
   Assyrians and the destruction by the Romans; and as to the third
   destruction, it may be a mere exaggeration, or may refer to the
   profanation of the temple by Antiochus, or to his own reign. (Comp.
   Warburton and Lardner on this point.) The impartial Ammianus
   Marcellinus, himself a professed pagan, a friend of Julian and his
   companion in arms, tells us more particularly, lib. xxiii. 1, that
   Julian, being desirous of perpetuating the memory of his reign by some
   great work, resolved to rebuild at vast expense the magnificent temple
   at Jerusalem, and committed the conduct of this enterprise to Alypius
   at Antioch, and then continues: "Quum itaque rei fortiter instaret
   Alypius, juvaretque provinciae rector, metuendi globi flammarum prope
   fundamenta crebris assultibus erumpentes fecere locum exustis
   aliquoties operantibus inaccessum; hocque modo clemento destinatius
   repellente, cessavit inceptum." ("Alypius, therefore, set himself
   vigorously to the work, and was assisted by the governor of the
   province, when fearful balls of fire broke out near the foundations,
   and continued their attacks until they made the place inaccessible to
   the workmen, after repeated scorchings; and thus, the fierce element
   obstinately repelling them, he gave up his attempt.") Michaelis,
   Lardner (who, however, is disposed to doubt the whole story), Gibbon,
   Guizot, Milman (note on Gibbon), Gieseler, and others, endeavor to
   explain this as a natural phenomenon, resulting from the bituminous
   nature of the soil and the subterranean vaults and reservoirs of the
   temple hill, of which Josephus and Tacitus speak. When Herod, in
   building the temple, wished to penetrate into the tomb of David, to
   obtain its treasures, fire likewise broke out and consumed the workmen,
   according to Joseph. Antiqu. Jud. xvi. 7, § 1. But when Titus
   undermined the temple, a.d.70, when Hadrian built there the Aelia
   Capitolina, in 135, and when Omar built a Turkish mosque in 644, no
   such destructive phenomena occurred as far as we know. We must
   therefore believe, that Providence itself, by these natural causes,
   prevented the rebuilding of the national sanctuary of the Jews.

   [84] Gregory Nazianzen, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius,
   Rufinus, Ambrose, Chrysostom; all of whom regard the event as
   supernatural, although they differ somewhat in detail. Theodoret speaks
   first of a violent whirlwind, which scattered about vast quantities of
   lime, sand, and other building materials, and was followed by a storm
   of thunder and lightning; Socrates mentions fire from heaven, which
   melted the workmen's tools, spades, axes, and saws; both add an
   earthquake, which threw up the stones of the old foundations, filled up
   the excavation, and, as Rufinus has it, threw down the neighboring
   buildings. At length a calm succeeded the commotion, and according to
   Gregory a luminous cross surrounded by a circle appeared in the sky,
   nay, crosses were impressed upon the bodies of the persons present,
   which were shining by night (Rufinus), and would not wash out
   (Socrates). Of these writers however, Gregory alone is strictly a
   contemporary witness, relating the event in the year of its occurrence,
   363, and that with the assurance that even the heathens did not call it
   in question. (Orat. iv. p. 110-113). Next to him come Ambrose, and
   Chrysostom, who speaks of this event several times. The Greek and Roman
   church historians, and Warburton, Mosheim, Schröckh, Neander, Guericke,
   Kurtz, Newman, Robertson, and others, of the Protestant, vindicate the
   miraculous, or at least providential, character of the remarkable
   event. Comp. also J. H. Newman (since gone over to Romanism): "Essay on
   the Miracles recorded in ecclesiastical history," prefixed to the
   Oxford Tractarian translation of Fleury's Eccles. Hist. from 381-400
   (Oxford, 1842) I. p. clxxv.-clxxxv. Warburton and Newman defend even
   the crosses, and refer to similar cases, for instance one in England in
   1610, where marks of a cross of a phosphoric nature and resembling
   meteoric phenomena appeared in connection with lightning and produced
   by electricity. In Julian's case they assumed that the immediate cause
   which set all these various physical agents in motion, as in the case
   of the destruction of Sodom, was supernatural.

   [85] Ammianus, l. xxv. 3. He was himself in the campaign, and served in
   the body guard of the emperor; thus having the best opportunity for
   observation.

   [86] Sozomen, vi. 2; Theodoret, iii. 25 (Nenikekas Galilaie ); then,
   somewhat differing, Philostorgius, vii. 15. Gregory Nazianzen, on the
   contrary, who elsewhere presents Julian in the worst light, knows
   nothing of this exclamation, to which one may apply the Italian maxim:
   "Se non è vero, è ben trovato." The above-named historians mention also
   other incidents of the death, not very credible; e.g. that he threw
   toward heaven a handful of blood from his wound; that he blasphemed the
   heathen gods; that Christ appeared to him, &c. Sozomen quotes also the
   groundless assertion of Libanius, that the mortal wound was inflicted
   not by a Persian, but by a Christian, and was not ashamed to add, that
   he can hardly be blamed who had done this " noble deed for God and his
   religion" (dia theon kai threskeian hen epenesen)! This is, so far as I
   know, the first instance, within the Christian church, of the
   vindication of tyrannicide ad majorem Dei gloriam.

   [87] Theodor. H. E. iii. 27.

   [88] The Christian poet, Prudentius, forms an exception, in his well
   known just estimate of Julian(Apotheos. 450 sqq.), which Gibbon also
   cites: ----"Ductor fortissimus armis; Conditor et legum celeberrimus;
   ore manuque Consultor patriae; sed non consultor habendae Religionis;
   amans tercentûm millia Divûm. Perfidus ille Deo, sed non et perfidus
   orbi."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 5. From Jovian to Theodosius. a.d. 363-392.

   I. The heathen sources here, besides Ammianus Marcellinus (who
   unfortunately breaks off at the death of Valens), Zosimus and Eunapius
   (who are very partial), are: Libanius: Huper ton hieron, or Oratio pro
   templis (first complete ed. by L. de Sinner, in Novus Patrum Grace.
   saec. iv. delectus, Par. 1842). Symmachus: Epist. x. 61 (ed. Pareus,
   Frcf. 1642). On the Christian side: Ambrose: Epist. xvii. and xviii. ad
   Valentinian. II. Prudentius: Adv. Symmachum. Augustin: De civitate Dei,
   l. v. c. 24-26 (on the emperors from Jovinian to Theodosius, especially
   the latter, whom he greatly glorifies). Socr.: l. iii. c. 22 sqq.
   Sozom.: l. vi. c. 3 sqq. Theodor.: l. iv. c. 1 sqq. Cod. Theodos.: l.
   ix.-xvi.

   II. De la Bleterie: Histoire de l'empereur Jovien. Amsterd. 1740, 2
   vols. Gibbon: chap. xxv-xxviii. Schröckh: vii. p. 213 sqq. Stuffken: De
   Theodosii M. in rem christianam meritis. Lugd. Batav. 1828

   From this time heathenism approached, with slow but steady step, its
   inevitable dissolution, until it found an inglorious grave amid the
   storms of the great migration and the ruins of the empire of the
   Caesars, and in its death proclaimed the victory of Christianity.
   Emperors, bishops, and monks committed indeed manifold injustice in
   destroying temples and confiscating property; but that injustice was
   nothing compared with the bloody persecution of Christianity for three
   hundred years. The heathenism of ancient Greece and Rome died of
   internal decay, which no human power could prevent.

   After Julian, the succession of Christian emperors continued unbroken.
   On the day of his death, which was also the extinction of the
   Constantinian family, the general Jovian, a Christian (363-364), was
   chosen emperor by the army. He concluded with the Persians a
   disadvantageous but necessary peace, replaced the cross in the labarum,
   and restored to the church her privileges, but, beyond this, declared
   universal toleration in the spirit of Constantine. Under the
   circumstances, this was plainly the wisest policy. Like Constantine,
   also, he abstained from all interference with the internal affairs of
   the church, though for himself holding the Nicene faith and warmly
   favorable to Athanasius. He died in the thirty-third year of his age,
   after a brief reign of eight months. Augustin says, God took him away
   sooner than Julian, that no emperor might become a Christian for the
   sake of Constantine's good fortune, but only for the sake of eternal
   life.

   His successor, Valentinian I. (died 375), though generally inclined to
   despotic measures, declared likewise for the policy of religious
   freedom, [89] and, though personally an adherent of the Nicene
   orthodoxy, kept aloof from the doctrinal controversies; while his
   brother and co-emperor, Valens, who reigned in the East till 378,
   favored the Arians and persecuted the Catholics. Both, however,
   prohibited bloody sacrifices [90] and divination. Maximin, the
   representative of Valentinian at Rome, proceeded with savage cruelty
   against all who were found guilty of the crime of magic, especially the
   Roman aristocracy. Soothsayers were burnt alive, while their meaner
   accomplices were beaten to death by straps loaded with lead. In almost
   every case recorded the magical arts can be traced to pagan religious
   usages.

   Under this reign heathenism was for the first time officially
   designated as paganismus, that is, peasant-religion; because it had
   almost entirely died out in the cities, and maintained only a decrepit
   and obscure existence in retired villages. [91] What an inversion of
   the state of things in the second century, when Celsus contemptuously
   called Christianity a religion of mechanics and slaves! Of course large
   exceptions must in both cases be made. Especially in Rome, many of the
   oldest and most respectable families for a long time still adhered to
   the heathen traditions, and the city appears to have preserved until
   the latter part of the fourth century a hundred and fifty-two temples
   and a hundred and eighty-three smaller chapels and altars of patron
   deities. [92] But advocates of the old religion--a Themistius, a
   Libanius, and a Symmachus--limited themselves to the claim of
   toleration, and thus, in their oppressed condition, became, as formerly
   the Christians were, and as the persecuted sects in the Catholic church
   and the Protestant state churches since have been, advocates of
   religious freedom.

   The same toleration continued under Gratian, son and successor of
   Valentinian (375-383). After a time, however; under the influence of
   Ambrose, bishop of Milan, this emperor went a step further. He laid
   aside the title and dignity of Pontifex Maximus, confiscated the temple
   property, abolished most of the privileges of the priests and vestal
   virgins, and withdrew, at least in part, the appropriation from the
   public treasury for their support. [93] By this step heathenism became,
   like Christianity before Constantine and now in the American republic,
   dependent on the voluntary system, while, unlike Christianity, it had
   no spirit of self-sacrifice, no energy of self-preservation. The
   withdrawal of the public support cut its lifestring, and left it still
   to exist for a time by vis inertiae alone. Gratian also, in spite of
   the protest of the heathen party, removed in 382 the statue and the
   altar of Victoria, the goddess of victory, in the senate building at
   Rome, where once the senators used to take their oath, scatter incense,
   and offer sacrifice; though he was obliged still to tolerate there the
   elsewhere forbidden sacrifices and the public support of some heathen
   festivities. Inspired by Ambrose with great zeal for the Catholic
   faith, he refused freedom to heretics, and prohibited the public
   assemblies of the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichaeans.

   His brother, Valentinian II. (383-392), rejected the renewed petition
   of the Romans for the restoration of the altar of Victoria (384). The
   eloquent and truly venerable prefect Symmachus, who, as princeps
   senatus and first Pontifex in Rome, was now the spokesman of the
   heathen party, prayed the emperor in a dignified and elegant address,
   but in the tone of apologetic diffidence, to make a distinction between
   his private religion and the religio urbis, to respect the authority of
   antiquity and the rights of the venerable city, which had attained the
   dominion of the world under the worship of the gods. But Ambrose of
   Milan represented to the emperor, in the firm tone of episcopal dignity
   and conscious success, that the granting of the petition would be a
   sanctioning of heathenism and a renunciation of his Christian
   convictions; denied, that the greatness of Rome was due to idolatry, to
   which indeed her subjugated enemies were likewise addicted; and
   contrasted the power of Christianity, which had greatly increased under
   persecution and had produced whole hosts of consecrated virgins and
   ascetics, with the weakness of heathenism, which, with all its
   privileges, could hardly maintain the number of its seven vestals, and
   could show no works of benevolence and mercy for the oppressed. The
   same petition was renewed in 389 to Theodosius, but again through the
   influence of Ambrose rejected. The last national sanctuary of the
   Romans had hopelessly fallen. The triumph, which the heathen party
   gained under the usurper Eugenius (392-394), lasted but a couple of
   years; and after his defeat by Theodosius, six hundred of the most
   distinguished patrician families, the Annii, Probi, Anicii, Olybii,
   Paulini, Bassi, Gracchi, &c., are said by Prudentius to have gone over
   at once to the Christian religion.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [89] Cod. Theodos. l. ix. tit. 16, I. 9 (of the year 371): Testes sunt
   leges a me in exordio imperii mei datae, quibus unicuique, quod animo
   imbibisset, colendi libera facultas tributa est. This is confirmed by
   Ammian. Marc. l. xxx. c. 9.

   [90] Libanius, l.c. (ed. Reiske, ii. 163): to thuein hiereia--ekoluthe
   para toin adelphoin, all ou to lianoton. No such law, however, has come
   down to us.

   [91] The word pagani (from pagus), properly villagers, peasantry, then
   equivalent to rude, simple, ignorant, idiotes, aphron, first occurs in
   the religious sense in a law of Valentinian, of 368 (Cod. Theodos. l.
   xvi. tit 2, I. 18), and came into general use under Theodosius, instead
   of the earlier terms: gentes, gentiles, nationes, Graeci, cultores
   simulacrorum, etc. The English heathen and heathenism (from heath), and
   the German Heiden and Heidenthum (from Heide), have a similar meaning,
   and are probably imitations of the Latin paganismus in its later usage.

   [92] According to the Descriptiones Urbis of Publicus Victor and Sextus
   Rufus Festus, which cannot have been composed before, nor long after,
   the reign of Valentinian. Comp. Beugnot, l.c. i. 266, and Robertson,
   l.c. p. 260.

   [93] Cod. Theos. xii. 1, 75; xvi. 10, 20. Symmach. Ep. x. 61. Ambrose,
   Ep. xvii.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 6. Theodosius the Great and his Successors. a.d. 392-550.

   J. R. Stuffken: Diss. de Theod. M. in rem. Christ. meritis. Leyden,
   1828. M. Fléchier: Histoire de Theodose le Grand. Par. 1860.

   The final suppression of heathenism is usually, though not quite
   justly, ascribed to the emperor Theodosius I., who, on this account, as
   well as for his victories over the Goths, his wise legislation, and
   other services to the empire, bears the distinction of the Great, and
   deserves, for his personal virtues, to be counted among the best
   emperors of Rome. [94] A native of Spain, son of a very worthy general
   of the same name, he was called by Gratian to be co-emperor in the East
   in a time of great danger from the threatening barbarians (379), and
   after the death of Valentinian, he rose to the head of the empire
   (392-395). He labored for the unity, of the state and the supremacy of
   the Catholic religion. He was a decided adherent of the Nicene
   orthodoxy, procured it the victory at the second ecumenical council
   (381), gave it all the privileges of the state religion, and issued a
   series of rigid laws against all heretics and schismatics. In his
   treatment of heathenism, for a time he only enforced the existing
   prohibition of sacrifice for purposes of magic and divination (385),
   but gradually extended it to the whole sacrificial worship. In the year
   391 he prohibited, under heavy fine, the visiting of a heathen temple
   for a religious purpose; in the following year, even the private
   performance of libations and other pagan rites. The practice of
   idolatry was therefore henceforth a political offence, as Constantius
   had already, though prematurely, declared it to be, and was subjected
   to the severest penalties. [95]

   Yet Theodosius by no means pressed the execution of these laws in
   places where the heathen party retained considerable strength; he did
   not exclude heathens from public office, and allowed them at least full
   liberty of thought and speech. His countryman, the Christian poet
   Prudentius, states with approbation, that in the distribution of the
   secular offices, he looked not at religion, but at merit and talent,
   and raised the heathen Symmachus to the dignity of consul. [96] The
   emperor likewise appointed the heathen rhetorician, Themistius, prefect
   of Constantinople, and even intrusted him with the education of his son
   Arcadius. He acknowledged personal friendship toward Libanius, who
   addressed to him his celebrated plea for the temples in 384 or 390;
   though it is doubtful whether he actually delivered it in the imperial
   presence. In short this emperor stood in such favor with the heathens,
   that after his death he was enrolled by the Senate, according to
   ancient custom, among the gods. [97]

   Theodosius issued no law for the destruction of temples. He only
   continued Gratian's policy of confiscating the temple property and
   withdrawing entirely the public contribution to the support of
   idolatry. But in many places, especially in the East, the fanaticism of
   the monks and the Christian populace broke out in a rage for
   destruction, which Libanius bitterly laments. He calls these
   iconoclastic monks "men in black clothes, as voracious as elephants,
   and insatiably thirsty, but concealing their sensuality under an
   artificial paleness." The belief of the Christians, that the heathen
   gods were living beings, demons, [98] and dwelt in the temples, was the
   leading influence here, and overshadowed all artistic and
   archaeological considerations. In Alexandria, a chief seat of the
   Neo-Platonic mysticism, there arose, at the instigation of the violent
   and unspiritual bishop Theophilus, [99] a bloody conflict between
   heathens and Christians, in which the colossal statue and the
   magnificent temple of Serapis, next to the temple of Jupiter
   Capitolinus in Rome the proudest monument of heathen architecture,
   [100] was destroyed, without verifying the current expectation that
   upon its destruction the heavens would fall (391). The power of
   superstition once broken by this decisive blow, the other temples in
   Egypt soon met a similar fate; though the eloquent ruins of the works
   of the Pharaohs, the Ptolemies, and the Roman emperors in the valley of
   the Nile still stand and cast their twilight into the mysterious
   darkness of antiquity. Marcellus, bishop of Apamea in Syria,
   accompanied by an armed band of soldiers and gladiators, proceeded with
   the same zeal against the monuments and vital centres of heathen
   worship in his diocese, but was burnt alive for it by the enraged
   heathens, who went unpunished for the murder. In Gaul, St. Martin of
   Tours, between the years 375 and 400, destroyed a multitude of temples
   and images, and built churches and cloisters in their stead.

   But we also hear important protests from the church against this pious
   vandalism. Says Chrysostom at Antioch in the beginning of this reign,
   in his beautiful tract on the martyr Babylas: "Christians are not to
   destroy error by force and violence, but should work the salvation of
   men by persuasion, instruction, and love." In the same spirit says
   Augustin, though not quite consistently: "Let us first obliterate the
   idols in the hearts of the heathen, and once they become Christians
   they will either themselves invite us to the execution of so good a
   work [the destruction of the idols], or anticipate us in it. Now we
   must pray for them, and not exasperate them." Yet he commended the
   severe laws of the emperors against idolatry.

   In the west the work of destruction was not systematically carried on,
   and the many ruined temples of Greece and Italy at this day prove that
   even then reason and taste sometimes prevailed over the rude caprice of
   fanaticism, and that the maxim, It is easier to tear down than to build
   up, has its exceptions.

   With the death of Theodosius the empire again fell into two parts,
   which were never afterward reunited. The weak sons and successors of
   this prince, Arcadius in the east (395-408) and Honorius in the west
   (395-423), and likewise Theodosius II., or the younger (son of
   Arcadius, 408-450), and Valentinian III. (423-455), repeated and in
   some cases added to the laws of the previous reign against the heathen.
   In the year 408, Honorius even issued an edict excluding heathens from
   civil and military office; [101] and in 423 appeared another edict,
   which questioned the existence of heathens. [102] But in the first
   place, such laws, in the then critical condition of the empire amidst
   the confusion of the great migration, especially in the West, could be
   but imperfectly enforced; and in the next place, the frequent
   repetition of them itself proves that heathenism still had its
   votaries. This fact is witnessed also by various heathen writers.
   Zosimus wrote his "New History," down to the year 410, under the reign
   and at the court of the younger Theodosius (appearing in the high
   office of comes and advocatus fisci, as he styles himself), in bitter
   prejudice against the Christian emperors. In many places the
   Christians, in their work of demolishing the idols, were murdered by
   the infuriated pagans.

   Meantime, however, there was cruelty also on the Christian side. One of
   the last instances of it was the terrible tragedy of Hypatia. This
   lady, a teacher of the Neo-Platonic philosophy in Alexandria,
   distinguished for her beauty, her intelligence, her learning, and her
   virtue, and esteemed both by Christians and by heathens, was seized in
   the open street by the Christian populace and fanatical monks, perhaps
   not without the connivance of the violent bishop Cyril, thrust out from
   her carriage, dragged to the cathedral, completely stripped,
   barbarously murdered with shells before the altar, and then torn to
   pieces and burnt, a.d. 415. [103] Socrates, who relates this, adds: "It
   brought great censure both on Cyril and on the Alexandrian church."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [94] Gibbon gives a very favorable estimate of his character, and
   justly charges the heathen Zosimus with gross prejudice against
   Theodosius. Schlosser and Milman also extol him.

   [95] Cod. Theos. xvi. 10, 12.

   [96] Prudent. in Symrnachum (written A-D. 403), l. i. v. 617 sqq.:
   "Denique pro meritis terrestribus aequa rependens Munera sacricolis
   summos impertit honores Dux bonus, et certare sinit cum laud e suorum,
   Nec pago implicitos [i.e. paganos, heathen] per debita culmina mundi
   Ire viros prohibet: quoniam coelestia nunquam Terrenis solitum per iter
   gradientibus obstant. Ipse magistratum tibi consulis, ipse tribunal
   Contulit."

   [97] Claudian, who at this period roused pagan poetry from its long
   sleep and derived his inspiration from the glory of Theodosius and his
   family, represents his death as an ascension to the gods. De tertio
   consulatu Honorii, v. 162 sqq.

   [98] Ambrose, Resp. ad Symmachum: "Dii enim gentium daemonia, ut
   Scriptura docet." Comp. Ps. xcvi. 5, Septuag.: Pantes hoi theoi ton
   ethnon daimonia. On this principle especially St. Martin of Tours
   proceeded in his zeal against the idol temples of Gaul. He asserted
   that the devil himself frequently assumed the visible form of Jupiter
   and Mercury, of Minerva and Venus, to protect their sinking
   sanctuaries. See Sulpit. Severna: Vita B. Martini, c. 4 and 6.

   [99] Gibbon styles him, unfortunately not without reason, "a bold, bad
   man, whose hands were alternately polluted with gold and with blood."

   [100] See an extended description of the Serapeion in Gibbon, and
   especially in Milman: Hist. of Christianity, &c., book iii. c. 8 (p.
   377 sqq. N. York ed.).

   [101] Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, 42: "Eos qui Catholicae sectae sunt
   inimici, intra palatium militare prohibemus. Nullus nobis sit aliqua
   ratione conjunctus, qui a nobis fide et religione discordat." According
   to the somewhat doubtful but usually admitted testimony of Zosimus, l.
   v. c. 46, this edict was revoked, in consequence of the threatened
   resignation of a pagan general, Generid, whom Honorius could not
   dispense with. But Theodosius issued similar laws in the east from 410
   to 439. See Gibbon, Milman, Schröckh, and Neander, l.c. The latter
   erroneously places the edict of Honorius in the year 416, instead of
   408.

   [102] Theodos. II. in Cod. Theodos. xvi. 10, 22: "Paganos, qui
   supersunt, quamquam jam nullos esse credamus, promulgatarum legum
   jamdudum praescripta compescant." But between 321 and 426 appeared no
   less than eight laws against apostasy to heathenism; showing that many
   nominal Christians changed their religion according to circumstances.

   [103] Socrat. vii. 15 (who considers Cyril guilty); the letters of
   Synesius, a pupil of Hypatia; and Philostorg. viii. 9. Comp. also
   Schröckh, vii. 45 sqq. and Wernsdorf: De Hypatia, philosopha Alex.
   diss. iv. Viteb. 1748. The "Hypatia" of Charles Kingsley is a
   historical didactic romance, with a polemical aim against the Puseyite
   overvaluation of patristic Christianity.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 7. The Downfall of Heathenism.

   The final dissolution of heathenism in the eastern empire may be dated
   from the middle of the fifth century. In the year 435 Theodosius II.
   commanded the temples to be destroyed or turned into churches. There
   still appear some heathens in civil office and at court so late as the
   beginning of the reign of Justinian I. (527-567). But this despotic
   emperor prohibited heathenism as a form of worship in the empire on
   pain of death, and in 529 abolished the last intellectual seminary of
   it, the philosophical school of Athens, which had stood nine hundred
   years. At that time just seven philosophers were teaching in that
   school, [104] the shades of the ancient seven sages of Greece,--a
   striking play of history, like the name of the last west-Roman emperor,
   Romulus Augustus, or, in contemptuous diminutive, Augustulus, combining
   the names of the founder of the city and the founder of the empire.

   In the West, heathenism maintained itself until near the middle of the
   sixth century, and even later, partly as a private religious conviction
   among many cultivated and aristocratic families in Rome, partly even in
   the full form of worship in the remote provinces and on the mountains
   of Sicily, Sardinia, [105] and Corsica, and partly in heathen customs
   and popular usages like the gladiatorial shows still extant in Rome in
   404, and the wanton Lupercalia, a sort of heathen carnival, the feast
   of Lupercus, the god of herds, still celebrated with all its excesses
   in February, 495. But, in general, it may be said that the Graeco-Roman
   heathenism, as a system of worship, was buried under the ruins of the
   western empire, which sunk under the storms of the great migration. It
   is remarkable that the northern barbarians labored with the same zeal
   in the destruction of idolatry as in the destruction of the empire, and
   really promoted the victory of the Christian religion. The Gothic king
   Alaric, on entering Rome, expressly ordered that the churches of the
   apostles Peter and Paul should be spared, as inviolable sanctuaries;
   and he showed a humanity, which Augustin justly attributes to the
   influence of Christianity (even perverted Arian Christianity) on these
   barbarous people. The Christian name, he says, which the heathen
   blaspheme, has effected not the destruction, but the salvation of the
   city. [106] Odoacer, who put an end to the western Roman empire in 476,
   was incited to his expedition into Italy by St. Severin, and, though
   himself an Arian, showed great regard to the catholic bishops. The same
   is true of his conqueror and successor, Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who
   was recognized by the east-Roman emperor Anastasius as king of Italy
   (a.d. 500), and was likewise an Arian. Thus between the barbarians and
   the Romans, as between the Romans and the Greeks and in a measure also
   the Jews, the conquered gave laws to the conquerors. Christianity
   triumphed over both.

   This is the end of Graeco-Roman heathenism, with its wisdom, and
   beauty. It fell a victim to a slow but steady process of incurable
   consumption. Its downfall is a sublime tragedy which, with all our
   abhorrence of idolatry, we cannot witness without a certain sadness. At
   the first appearance of Christianity it comprised all the wisdom,
   literature, art, and political power of the civilized world, and led
   all into the field against the weaponless religion of the crucified
   Nazarene. After a conflict of four or five centuries it lay prostrate
   in the dust without hope of resurrection. With the outward protection
   of the state, it lost all power, and had not even the courage of
   martyrdom; while the Christian church showed countless hosts of
   confessors and blood-witnesses, and Judaism lives to-day in spite of
   all persecution. The expectation, that Christianity would fall about
   the year 398, after an existence of three hundred and sixty-five years,
   [107] turned out in the fulfilment to relate to heathenism itself. The
   last glimmer of life in the old religion was its pitiable prayer for
   toleration and its lamentation over the ruin of the empire. Its best
   elements took refuge in the church and became converted, or at least
   took Christian names. Now the gods were dethroned, oracles and
   prodigies ceased, sibylline books were burned, temples were destroyed,
   or transformed into churches, or still stand as memorials of the
   victory of Christianity. [108]

   But although ancient Greece and Rome have fallen forever, the spirit of
   Graeco-Roman paganism is not extinct. It still lives in the natural
   heart of man, which at this day as much as ever needs regeneration by
   the spirit of God. It lives also in many idolatrous and superstitious
   usages of the Greek and Roman churches, against which the pure spirit
   of Christianity has instinctively protested from the beginning, and
   will protest, till all remains of gross and refined idolatry shall be
   outwardly as well as inwardly overcome, and baptized and sanctified not
   only with water, but also with the spirit and fire of the gospel.

   Finally the better genius of ancient Greece and Rome still lives in the
   immortal productions of their poets, philosophers, historians, and
   orators,--yet no longer an enemy, but a friend and servant of Christ.
   What is truly great, and noble, and beautiful can never perish. The
   classic literature had prepared the way for the gospel, in the sphere
   of natural culture, and was to be turned thenceforth into a weapon for
   its defence. It passed, like the Old Testament, as a rightful
   inheritance, into the possession of the Christian church, which saved
   those precious works of genius through the ravages of the migration of
   nations and the darkness of the middle ages, and used them as material
   in the rearing of the temple of modern civilization. The word of the
   great apostle of the Gentiles was here fulfilled: "All things are
   yours." The ancient classics, delivered from the demoniacal possession
   of idolatry, have come into the service of the only true and living
   God, once "unknown" to them, but now everywhere revealed, and are thus
   enabled to fulfil their true mission as the preparatory tutors of youth
   for Christian learning and culture. This is the noblest, the most
   worthy, and most complete victory of Christianity, transforming the
   enemy into friend and ally.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [104] Damascius of Syria, Simplicius of Cilicia (the most celebrated),
   Eulalius of Phrygia, Priscianus of Lydia, Isidore of Gaza, Hermias, and
   Diogenes. They had the courage to prefer exile to the renunciation of
   their convictions, and found with King Chosroes of Persia a welcome
   reception, but afterwards returned into the Roman empire under promise
   of toleration. Comp. Schröckh, xvi. p. 74 sqq.

   [105] On these remains of heathenism in the West comp. the citations of
   Gieseler, i. §79, not. 22 and 23 (i. 2. p. 38-40. Engl. ed. of N. York,
   i. p. 219 sq.).

   [106] Aug.: De Civit. Dei, l. i. c. 1-6.

   [107] Augustin mentions this story, De Civit. Dei, xviii. 53. Gieseler
   (vol. i. § 79, not. 17) derives it from a heathen perversion of the
   Christian (heretical) expectation of the second coming of Christ and
   the end of the world; referring to Philastr. haer. 106: "Alia est
   haeresis de anno annunciato ambigens, quod ait propheta Esaias:
   Annuntiare annum Dei acceptabilem et diem retributionis. Putant ergo
   quidam, quod ex quo venit Dominus usque ad consummationem saeculi non
   plus nec minus fieri annorum numerum, nisi CCCLXV usque ad Christi
   Domini iterum de coelo divinam praesentiam."

   [108] Comp. August.: Epist. 232, where he thus eloquently addresses the
   heathen: Videtis simulacrorum templa partim sine reparatione collapsa,
   partim diruta, partim clausa, partim in usus alienos commutata; ipsaque
   simulacra vel confringi, vel incendi, vel includi, vel destrui; atque
   ipsas huius saeculi potestates quae aliquando pro simulacris populum
   Christianum persequebantur, victas et domitas, non a repugnantibus sed
   a morientibus Christianis, et contra eadem simulacra, pro quibus
   Christianos occidebant, impetus suos legesque vertisse et imperii
   nobilissimi eminentissimum culmen ad sepulcrum piscatoris Petri
   submisso diademate supplicare."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER II.

   THE LITERARY TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY OVER GREEK AND ROMAN HEATHENISM.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 8. Heathen Polemics. New Objections.

   I. Comp. The sources at §§ 4 and 5, especially the writings of Julian
   The Apostate Kata Christianon, and Libanius, huper ton hieron. Also
   Pseudo-lucian: Philopatris (of the age of Julian or later, comprised in
   the works of Lucian). Proclus (412-487): xviii epicheiremata kata
   christianon(preserved in the counter work of Joh. Philoponus: De
   aeternitate mundi, ed. Venet. 1535). In part also the historical works
   of Eunapius and Zosimus.

   II. Marqu. d'Argens: defense du paganisme par l'emper. Julien en grec
   et en franc. (collected from fragments in Cyril), avec des dissertat.
   Berl. 1764, sec. ed. Augmentée, 1767. This singular work gave occasion
   to two against it by G. Fr. Meier, Halle, 1764, And W. Crichton, Halle,
   1765, in which the arguments of Julian were refuted anew. Nath.
   Lardner, in his learned collection of ancient heathen testimonies for
   the credibility of the Gospel History, treats also largely of Julian.
   See his collected works, ed. by Dr. Kippis, Lond. 1838, vol. vii. p.
   581-652. Schröckh: vi. 354-385. Neander: iii. 77 sqq. (Engl. transl. of
   Torrey ii. 84-93).

   The internal conflict between heathenism and Christianity presents the
   same spectacle of dissolution on the one hand and conscious power on
   the other. And here the Nicene age reaped the fruit of the earlier
   apologists, who ably and fearlessly defended the truth of the true
   religion and refuted the errors of idolatry in the midst of
   persecution. [109] The literary opposition to Christianity had already
   virtually exhausted itself, and was now thrown by the great change of
   circumstances into apology for heathenism; while what was then apology
   on the Christian side now became triumphant polemics. The last enemy
   was the Neo-Platonic philosophy, as taught particularly in the schools
   of Alexandria and Athens even down to the fifth century. This
   philosophy, however, as we have before remarked, [110] was no longer
   the product of pure, fresh heathenism, but an artificial syncretism of
   elements heathen and Christian, Oriental and Hellenic, speculative and
   theurgic, evincing only the growing weakness of the old religion and
   the irresistible power of the new.

   Besides the old oft-refuted objections, sundry new ones came forward
   after the time of Constantine, in some cases the very opposite of the
   earlier ones, touching not so much the Christianity of the Bible as
   more or less the state-church system of the Nicene and post-Nicene age,
   and testifying the intrusion of heathen elements into the church.
   Formerly simplicity and purity of morals were the great ornament of the
   Christians over against the prevailing corruption; now it could be
   justly observed that, as the whole world had crowded into the church,
   it had let in also all the vices of the world. Against those vices,
   indeed, the genuine virtues of Christianity proved themselves as
   vigorous as ever. But the heathen either could not or would not look
   through the outward appearance and discriminate the wheat from the
   chaff. Again: the Christians of the first three centuries had confessed
   their faith at the risk of life, maintained it under sufferings and
   death, and claimed only toleration; now they had to meet reproach from
   the heathen minority for hypocrisy, selfishness, ambition, intolerance,
   and the spirit of persecution against heathens, Jews, and heretics.
   From being suspected as enemies to the emperor and the empire, they now
   came to be charged in various ways with servile and fawning submission
   to the Christian rulers. Formerly known as abhorring every kind of
   idolatry and all pomp in worship, they now appeared in their growing
   veneration for martyrs and relics to reproduce and even exceed the
   ancient worship of heroes.

   Finally, even the victory of Christianity was branded as a reproach. It
   was held responsible by the latest heathen historians not only for the
   frequent public calamities, which had been already charged upon it
   under Marcus Aurelius and in the time of Tertullian, but also for the
   decline and fall of the once so mighty Roman empire. But this
   objection, very popular at the time, is refuted by the simple fact,
   that the empire in the East, where Christianity earlier and more
   completely prevailed, outlived by nearly ten centuries the western
   branch. The dissolution of the west-Roman empire was due rather to its
   unwieldy extent, the incursion of barbarians, and the decay of morals,
   which was hastened by the introduction of all the vices of conquered
   nations, and which had already begun under Augustus, yea, during the
   glorious period of the republic; for the republic would have lasted
   much longer if the foundations of public and private virtue had not
   been undermined. [111] Taken from a higher point of view, the downfall
   of Rome was a divine judgment upon the old essentially heathen world,
   as the destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment upon the Jewish nation
   for their unbelief. But it was at the same time the inevitable
   transition to a new creation which Christianity soon began to rear on
   the ruins of heathendom by the conversion of the barbarian conquerors,
   and the founding of a higher Christian civilization. This was the best
   refutation of the last charge of the heathen opponents of the religion
   of the cross.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [109] Comp. vol. i. §§ 60-66.

   [110] Comp. § 4 (p. 42), and vol. i. § 61.

   [111] Gibbon, too, imputes the fall of the west-Roman empire not, as
   unjustly charged by Dr. Kurtz (Handbuch der allg. Kirchengesch. i. 2,
   p. 15, 3d ed.), to Christianity, but almost solely to the pressure of
   its own weight. Comp. his General Observations on the Fall of the R.
   Empire in the West, at the close of ch. xxxviii., where he says: "The
   decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
   greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of
   destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time
   or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
   yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is
   simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was
   destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so
   long." Gibbon then mentions Christianity also, it is true, or more
   properly monasticism, which, he thinks, suppressed with its passive
   virtues the patriotic and martial spirit, and so far contributed to the
   catastrophe; but adds: "If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened
   [--he says not: caused--] by the conversion of Constantine, his
   victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the
   ferocious temper of the conquerors." This view is very different from
   that of Eunapius and Zosimus, with which Kurtz identifies it. Gibbon in
   general follows more closely Ammianus Marcellinus, whom, with all
   reason, he holds as a historian far superior to the others.--Lord Byron
   truthfully expresses the law of decay to which Rome succumbed, in these
   words from Childe Harold: "There is the moral of all human tales; 'T is
   but the same rehearsal of the past: First freedom, and then glory--when
   that fails, Wealth, vice, corruption, barbarism at last."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 9. Julian's Attack upon Christianity.

   For Literature comp. § 4 p. 39, 40.

   The last direct and systematic attack upon the Christian religion
   proceeded from the emperor Julian. In his winter evenings at Antioch in
   363, to account to the whole world for his apostasy, he wrote a work
   against the Christians, which survives, at least in fragments, in a
   refutation of it by Cyril of Alexandria, written about 432. In its
   three books, perhaps seven (Cyril mentions only three [112] ), it shows
   no trace of the dispassionate philosophical or historical appreciation
   of so mighty a phenomenon as Christianity in any case is. Julian had no
   sense for the fundamental ideas of sin and redemption or the cardinal
   virtues of humility and love. He stood entirely in the sphere of
   naturalism, where the natural light of Helios outshines the mild
   radiance of the King of truth, and the admiration of worldly greatness
   leaves no room for the recognition of the spiritual glory of
   self-renunciation. He repeated the arguments of a Celsus and a Porphyry
   in modified form; expanded them by his larger acquaintance with the
   Bible, which he had learned according to the letter in his clerical
   education; and breathed into all the bitter hatred of an Apostate,
   which agreed ill with his famous toleration and entirely blinded him to
   all that was good in his opponents. He calls the religion of "the
   Galilean" an impious human invention and a conglomeration of the worst
   elements of Judaism and heathenism without the good of either; that is,
   without the wholesome though somewhat harsh discipline of the former,
   or the pious belief in the gods, which belongs to the latter. Hence he
   compares the Christians to leeches, which draw all impure blood and
   leave the pure. In his view, Jesus, "the dead Jew," did nothing
   remarkable during his lifetime, compared with heathen heroes, but to
   heal lame and blind people and exorcise daemoniacs, which is no very
   great matter. [113] He was able to persuade only a few of the ignorant
   peasantry, not even to gain his own kinsmen. [114] Neither Matthew, nor
   Mark, nor Luke, nor Paul called him God. John was the first to venture
   so far, and procured acceptance for his view by a cunning artifice.
   [115] The later Christians perverted his doctrine still more impiously,
   and have abandoned the Jewish sacrificial worship and ceremonial law,
   which was given for all time, and was declared irrevocable by Jesus
   himself. [116] A universal religion, with all the peculiarities of
   different national characters, appeared to him unreasonable and
   impossible. He endeavored to expose all manner of contradictions and
   absurdities in the Bible. The Mosaic history of the creation was
   defective, and not to be compared with the Platonic. Eve was given to
   Adam for a help, yet she led him astray. Human speech is put into the
   mouth of the serpent, and the curse is denounced on him, though he
   leads man on to the knowledge of good and evil, and thus proves himself
   of great service. Moses represents God as jealous, teaches monotheism,
   yet polytheism also in calling the angels gods. The moral precepts of
   the decalogue are found also among the heathen, except the commands,
   "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and, "Remember the Sabbath
   day." He prefers Lycurgus and Solon to Moses. As to Samson and David,
   they were not very remarkable for valor, and exceeded by many Greeks
   and Egyptians, and all their power was confined within the narrow
   limits of Judea. The Jews never had any general equal to Alexander or
   Caesar. Solomon is not to be compared with Theognis, Socrates, and
   other Greek sages; moreover he is said to have been overcome by women,
   and therefore does not deserve to be ranked among wise men. Paul was an
   arch-traitor; calling God now the God of the Jews, now the God of the
   Gentiles, now both at once; not seldom contradicting the Old Testament,
   Christ, and himself, and generally accommodating his doctrine to
   circumstances. The heathen emperor thinks it absurd that Christian
   baptism should be able to cleanse from gross sins, while it cannot
   remove a wart, or gout, or any bodily evil. He puts the Bible far below
   the Hellenic literature, and asserts, that it made men slaves, while
   the study of the classics educated great heroes and philosophers. The
   first Christians he styles most contemptible men, and the Christians of
   his day he charges with ignorance, intolerance, and worshipping dead
   persons, bones, and the wood of the cross.

   With all his sarcastic bitterness against Christianity, Julian
   undesignedly furnishes some valuable arguments for the historical
   character of the religion he hated and assailed. The learned and
   critical Lardner, after a careful analysis of his work against
   Christianity, thus ably and truthfully sums up Julian's testimony in
   favor of it:

   "Julian argues against the Jews as well as against the Christians. He
   has borne a valuable testimony to the history and to the books of the
   New Testament, as all must acknowledge who have read the extracts just
   made from his work. He allows that Jesus was born in the reign of
   Augustus, at the time of the taxing made in Judea by Cyrenius: that the
   Christian religion had its rise and began to be propagated in the times
   of the emperors Tiberius and Claudius. He bears witness to the
   genuineness and authenticity of the four gospels of Matthew, Mark,
   Luke, and John, and the Acts of the Apostles: and he so quotes them, as
   to intimate, that these were the only historical books received by
   Christians as of authority, and the only authentic memoirs of Jesus
   Christ and his apostles, and the doctrine preached by them. He allows
   their early date, and even argues for it. He also quotes, or plainly
   refers to the Acts of the Apostles, to St. Paul's Epistles to the
   Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians. He does not deny the
   miracles of Jesus Christ, but allows him to have 'healed the blind, and
   the lame, and demoniacs,' and 'to have rebuked the winds, and walked
   upon the waves of the sea.' He endeavors indeed to diminish these
   works; but in vain. The consequence is undeniable: such works are good
   proofs of a divine mission. He endeavors also to lessen the number of
   the early believers in Jesus, and yet he acknowledgeth, that there were
   'multitudes of such men in Greece and Italy,' before St. John wrote his
   gospel. He likewise affects to diminish the quality of the early
   believers; and yet acknowledgeth, that beside 'menservants, and
   maidservants,' Cornelius, a Roman centurion at Caesarea, and Sergius
   Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, were converted to the faith of Jesus
   before the end of the reign of Claudius. And he often speaks with great
   indignation of Peter and Paul, those two great apostles of Jesus, and
   successful preachers of his gospel. So that, upon the whole, he has
   undesignedly borne witness to the truth of many things recorded in the
   books of the New Testament: he aimed to overthrow the Christian
   religion, but has confirmed it: his arguments against it are perfectly
   harmless, and insufficient to unsettle the weakest Christian. He justly
   excepts to some things introduced into the Christian profession by the
   late professors of it, in his own time, or sooner; but has not made one
   objection of moment against the Christian religion, as contained in the
   genuine and authentic books of the New Testament." [117]

   The other works against Christianity are far less important.

   The dialogue Philopatris, or The Patriot, is ascribed indeed to the
   ready scoffer and satirist Lucian (died about 200), and joined to his
   works; but it is vastly inferior in style and probably belongs to the
   reign of Julian, or a still later period; [118] since it combats the
   church doctrine of the Trinity and of the procession of the Spirit from
   the Father, though not by argument, but only by ridicule. It is a
   frivolous derision of the character and doctrines of the Christians in
   the form of a dialogue between Critias, a professed heathen, and
   Triephon, an Epicurean, personating a Christian. It represents the
   Christians as disaffected to the government, dangerous to civil
   society, and delighting in public calamities. It calls St. Paul a half
   bald, long-nosed Galilean, who travelled through the air to the third
   heaven (2 Cor. 12, 1-4).

   The last renowned representative of Neo-Platonism, Proclus of Athens
   (died 487), defended the Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the
   world, and, without mentioning Christianity, contested the biblical
   doctrine of the creation and the end of the world in eighteen
   arguments, which the Christian philosopher, John Philoponus, refuted in
   the seventh century.

   The last heathen historians, Eunapius and Zosimus, of the first half of
   the fifth century, indirectly assailed Christianity by a one-sided
   representation of the history of the Roman empire from the time of
   Constantine, and by tracing its decline to the Christian religion;
   while, on the contrary, Ammianus Marcellinus (died about 390) presents
   with honorable impartiality both the dark and the bright sides of the
   Christian emperors and of the Apostate Julian. [119]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [112] In the preface to his refutation, Contra Jul. i. p. 3: Tria
   sungegrapse biblia kata ton hagion euangelion kai kata tes euagous ton
   Christianon threskeias. But Jerome says, Epist. 83 (tom. iv. p. 655): "
   Julianus Augustus septem libros, in expeditione Parthica [or rather
   before he left Antioch and started for Persia], adversus Christianos
   vomuit."

   [113] Cyril has omitted the worst passages of Julian respecting Christ,
   but quotes the following (Contra Jul. l. vi. p. 191, ed. Spanh.), which
   is very characteristic: "Jesus, who over-persuaded much (anapeisas) the
   lowest among you, some few, has now been talked of (onomazetai) for
   three hundred years, though during his life he performed nothing worth
   mentioning (ouden akoes axion), unless it be thought a mighty matter to
   heal the cripples and blind persons and to exorcise those possessed of
   demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany (ei me tis eietai tous
   kollous kai tous tuphlous iasasthai, kai daimonontas ephorkizein en
   Bethseida kai en Bethania tais komais ton megiston ergon einai )" Dr.
   Lardner has ingeniously inferred from this passage that, Julian, by
   conceding to Christ the power of working miracles, and admitting the
   general truths of the gospel traditions, furnishes an argument for
   Christianity rather than against it.

   [114] Jno. vii. 5.

   [115] "Neither Paul," he says (Cyr. l. x. p. 327), "nor Matthew, nor
   Luke, nor Mark has dared to call Jesus God. But honest John (ho
   chrestos Ioannes), understanding that a great multitude of men in the
   cities of Greece and Italy were seized with this distemper; and hearing
   likewise, as I suppose, that the tombs of Peter and Paul were
   respected, and frequented, though as yet privately only, however,
   having heard of it, he then first presumed to advance that doctrine."

   [116] Matt. v. 17-19.

   [117] Dr. Nathiel Lardner's Works, ed. by Dr. Kippis in ten vols. Vol.
   vii. pp. 638 and 639. As against the mythical theory of Strauss and
   Renan the extract from Lardner has considerable force, as well as his
   whole work on the credibility of the Gospel History.

   [118] According to Niebuhr's view it must have been composed under the
   emperor Phocas, 968 or 969. Moyle places it in the year 302, Dodwell in
   the year 261, others in the year 272.

   [119] The more is it to be regretted, that the fisrt thirteen books of
   his history of the Roman emperors from Nerva to 353 are lost. The
   remaining eighteen books reach from 353 to 378.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 10. The Heathen Apologetic Literature.

   After the death of Julian most of the heathen writers, especially the
   ablest and most estimable, confined themselves to the defence of their
   religion, and thus became, by reason of their position, advocates of
   toleration; and, of course, of toleration for the religious syncretism,
   which in its cooler form degenerates into philosophical indifferentism.

   Among these were Themistius, teacher of rhetoric, senator, and prefect
   of Constantinople, and afterwards preceptor of the young emperor
   Arcadius; Aurelius Symmachus, rhetorician, senator, and prefect of Rome
   under Gratian and Valentinian II., the eloquent pleader for the altar
   of Victoria; and above all, the rhetorician Libanius, friend and
   admirer of Julian, alternately teaching in Constantinople, Nicomedia,
   and Antioch. These all belong to the second half of the fourth century,
   and represent at once the last bloom and the decline of the classic
   eloquence. They were all more or less devoted to the Neo-Platonic
   syncretism. They held, that the Deity had implanted in all men a
   religious nature and want, but had left the particular form of
   worshiping God to the free will of the several nations and individuals;
   that all outward constraint, therefore, was contrary to the nature of
   religion and could only beget hypocrisy. Themistius vindicated this
   variety of the forms of religion as favorable to religion itself, as
   many Protestants justify the system of sects. "The rivalry of different
   religions," says he in his oration on Jovian, "serves to stimulate zeal
   for the worship of God. There are different paths, some hard, others
   easy, some rough, others smooth, leading to the same goal. Leave only
   one way, and shut up the rest, and you destroy emulation. God would
   have no such uniformity among men .... The Lord of the universe
   delights in manifoldness. It is his will, that Syrians, Greeks,
   Egyptians should worship him, each nation in its own way, and that the
   Syrians again should divide into small sects, no one of which agrees
   entirely with another. Why should we thus enforce what is impossible?"
   In the same style argues Symmachus, who withholds all direct opposition
   to Christianity and contends only against its exclusive supremacy.

   Libanius, in his plea for the temples addressed to Theodosius I. (384
   or 390), called to his aid every argument, religious, political, and
   artistic, in behalf of the heathen sanctuaries, but interspersed bitter
   remarks against the temple-storming monks. He asserts among other
   things, that the principles of Christianity itself condemn the use of
   force in religion, and commend the indulgence of free conviction.

   Of course this heathen plea for toleration was but the last desperate
   defence of a hopeless minority, and an indirect self-condemnation of
   heathenism for its persecution of the Christian religion in the first
   three centuries.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 11. Christian Apologists and Polemics.

   SOURCES.

   I. The Greek Apologists: Eusebius Caes.: Proparaskeue
   euangelike(Preparatio evang.), and Apodeixis euangelike(Demonstratio
   evang.); besides his controversial work against Hierocles; and his
   Theophany, discovered in 1842 in a Syriac version (ed. Lee, Lond.
   1842). Athanasius: Kataton Hellenon(Oratio contra Gentes), and Peri tes
   enanthropeseos tou Logou(De incarnatione Verbi Dei): two treatises
   belonging together (Opera, ed. Bened. tom. i. 1 sqq.). Cyril of Alex.:
   Contra impium Julianum libri X (with extracts from the three books of
   Julian against Christianity). Theodoret: Graecarum affectionum curatio
   (Hellenikon therapeutike pathematon), disput. XII.

   II. The Latin Apologists: Lactantius: Instit. divin. l. vii
   (particularly the first three books, de falsa religione, de origine
   erroris, and de falsa sapientia; the third against the heathen
   philosophy). Julius Firmicus Maternus: De errore profanarum religionum
   (not mentioned by the ancients, but edited several times in the
   sixteenth century, and latterly by F. Münter, Havn. 1826). Ambrose: Ep.
   17 and 18 (against Symmachus). Prudentius: In Symmachum (an apologetic
   poem). Paul. Orosius: Adv. paganos historiarum l. vii (an apologetic
   universal history, against Eunapius and Zosimus). Augustine: De
   civitate Dei l. xxii (often separately published). Salvianus: De
   gubernatione Dei l. viii (the eighth book incomplete).

   MODERN LITERATURE.

   Comp. in part the apologetic literature at § 63 of vol. i. Also
   Schrökh: vii., p. 263-355. Neander: iii., 188-195 (Engl. ed. of Torrey,
   ii., 90-93). Döllinger (R.C.): Hdbuch der K. G., vol. I., part 2, p.
   50-91.K. Werner (R.C.): Geschichte der Apolog. und polem. Literatur der
   christl. Theol. Schaffh. 1861-'65, 4 vols. vol. i.

   In the new state of things the defence of Christianity was no longer of
   so urgent and direct importance as it had been before the time of
   Constantine. And the theological activity of the church now addressed
   itself mainly to internal doctrinal controversy. Still the fourth and
   fifth centuries produced several important apologetic works, which far
   outshone the corresponding literature of the heathen.

   (1) Under Constantine we have Lactantius in Latin, Eusebius and
   Athanasius in Greek, representing, together with Theodoret, who was a
   century later, the close of the older apology.

   Lactantius prefaces his vindication of Christian truth with a
   refutation of the heathen superstition and philosophy; and he is more
   happy in the latter than in the former. He claims freedom for all
   religions, and represents the transition standpoint of the
   Constantinian edicts of toleration.

   Eusebius, the celebrated historian, collected with diligence and
   learning in several apologetic works, above all in his "Evangelic
   Preparation," the usual arguments against heathenism, and in his
   "Evangelic Demonstration" the positive evidences of Christianity,
   laying chief stress upon the prophecies.

   With less scholarship, but with far greater speculative compass and
   acumen, the great Athanasius, in his youthful productions "against the
   Greeks," and "on the incarnation of the Logos" (before 325), gave in
   main outline the argument for the divine origin, the truth, the
   reasonableness, and the perfection of the Christian religion. These two
   treatises, particularly the second, are, next to Origen's doctrinal
   work De principiis, the first attempt to construct a scientific system
   of the Christian religion upon certain fundamental ideas of God and
   world, sin and redemption; and they form the ripe fruit of the positive
   apology in the Greek church. The Logos, Athanasius teaches, is the
   image of the living, only true God. Man is the image of the Logos. In
   communion with him consist the original holiness and blessedness of
   paradise. Man fell by his own will, and thus came to need redemption.
   Evil is not a substance of itself, not matter, as the Greeks suppose,
   nor does it come from the Creator of all things. It is an abuse of
   freedom on the part of man, and consists in selfishness or self-love,
   and in the dominion of the sensuous principle over the reason. Sin, as
   apostasy from God, begets idolatry. Once alienated from God and plunged
   into finiteness and sensuousness, men deified the powers of nature, or
   mortal men, or even carnal lusts, as in Aphrodite. The inevitable
   consequence of sin is death and corruption. The Logos, however, did not
   forsake men. He gave them the law and the prophets to prepare them for
   salvation. At last he himself became man, neutralized in human nature
   the power of sin and death, restored the divine image, uniting us with
   God and imparting to us his imperishable life. The possibility and
   legitimacy of the incarnation lie in the original relation of the Logos
   to the world, which was created and is upheld by him. The incarnation,
   however, does not suspend the universal reign of the Logos. While he
   was in man, he was at the same time everywhere active and reposing in
   the bosom of the Father. The necessity of the incarnation to salvation
   follows from the fact, that the corruption had entered into human
   nature itself, and thus must be overcome within that nature. An
   external redemption, as by preaching God, could profit nothing. "For
   this reason the Saviour assumed humanity, that man, united with life,
   might not remain mortal and in death, but imbibing immortality might by
   the resurrection be immortal. The outward preaching of redemption would
   have to be continually repeated, and yet death would abide in man."
   [120] The object of the incarnation is, negatively, the annihilation of
   sin and death; positively, the communication of righteousness and life
   and the deification of man. [121] The miracles of Christ are the proof
   of his original dominion over nature, and lead men from nature-worship
   to the worship of God. The death of Jesus was necessary to the blotting
   out of sin and to the demonstration of his life-power in the
   resurrection, whereby also the death of believers is now no longer
   punishment, but a transition to resurrection and glory.--This
   speculative analysis of the incarnation Athanasius supports by
   referring to the continuous moral effects of Christianity, which is
   doing great things every day, calling man from idolatry, magic, and
   sorceries to the worship of the true God, obliterating sinful and
   irrational lusts, taming the wild manners of barbarians, inciting to a
   holy walk, turning the natural fear of death into rejoicing, and
   lifting the eye of man from earth to heaven, from mortality to
   resurrection and eternal glory. The benefits of the incarnation are
   incalculable, like the waves of the sea pursuing one another in
   constant succession.

   (2) Under the sons of Constantine, between the years 343 and 350,
   Julius Firmicus Maternus, an author otherwise unknown to us, [122]
   wrote against heathenism with large knowledge of antiquity, but with
   fanatical zeal, regarding it, now on the principle of Euhemerus, as a
   deification of mortal men and natural elements, now as a distortion of
   the biblical history. [123] At the close, quite mistaking the gentle
   spirit of the New Testament, he urges the sons of Constantine to
   exterminate heathenism by force, as God commanded the children of
   Israel to proceed against the Canaanites; and openly counsels them
   boldly to pillage the temples and to enrich themselves and the church
   with the stolen goods. This sort of apology fully corresponds with the
   despotic conduct of Constantius, which induced the reaction of
   heathenism under Julian.

   (3) The attack of Julian upon Christianity brought out no reply on the
   spot, [124] but subsequently several refutations, the chief one by
   Cyril of Alexandria ( 444), in ten books "against the impious Julian,"
   still extant and belonging among his most valuable works. About the
   same time Theodoret wrote an apologetic and polemic work: "The Healing
   of the Heathen Affections," in twelve treatises, in which he endeavors
   to refute the errors of the false religion by comparison of the
   prophecies and miracles of the Bible with the heathen oracles, of the
   apostles with the heroes and lawgivers of antiquity, of the Christian
   morality with the immorality of the heathen world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [120] De incarn. c. 44 (Opera ed. Bened. i. p. 86).

   [121] Ho Logos enanthropesen, ina hemeis theopoiethomen.

   [122] It is uncertain whether he was the author of a mathematical and
   astrological work written some years earlier and published at Basel in
   1551, which treats of the influence of the stars upon men, but conjures
   its readers not to divulge these Egyptian and Babylonian mysteries, as
   astrology was forbidden at the time. If he were the author, he must
   have not only wholly changed his religion, but considerably improved
   his style.

   [123] The Egyptian Serapis, for instance, was no other than Joseph,
   who, being the grand-son of Sara, was named Saras apo.

   [124] Though Apollinaris wrote a book "Of the Truth" against the
   emperor and the heathen philosophers, of which Julianis reported to
   have said sneeringly: Anegnon, egnon, kategnon:"I have read it,
   understood it, and condemned it." To which the Christian bishops
   rejoined in like tone: Anegnos, all auk egnos , ei gar egnos ouk an
   kategnos: "You have read, but not understood, for, had you understood
   you would not have condemned." So says Sozomen: v. 18. Comp. Schröckh:
   vi. 355.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 12. Augustine's City of God. Salvianus.

   (4) Among the Latin apologists we must mention Augustine, Orosius, and
   Salvianus, of the fifth century. They struck a different path from the
   Greeks, and devoted themselves chiefly to the objection of the
   heathens, that the overthrow of idolatry and the ascendency of
   Christianity were chargeable with the misfortunes and the decline of
   the Roman empire. This objection had already been touched by
   Tertullian, but now, since the repeated incursions of the barbarians,
   and especially the capture and sacking of the city of Rome under the
   Gothic king Alaric in 410, it recurred with peculiar force. By way of
   historical refutation the Spanish presbyter Orosius, at the suggestion
   of Augustine, wrote an outline of universal history in the year 417.

   Augustine himself answered the charge in his immortal work "On the city
   of God," that is, the church of Christ, in twenty-two books, upon which
   he labored twelve years, from 413 to 426, amidst the storms of the
   great migration and towards the close of his life. He was not wanting
   in appreciation of the old Roman virtues, and he attributes to these
   the former greatness of the empire, and to the decline of them he
   imputes her growing weakness. But he rose at the same time far above
   the superficial view, which estimates persons and things by the scale
   of earthly profit and loss, and of temporary success. "The City of God"
   is the most powerful, comprehensive, profound, and fertile production
   in refutation of heathenism and vindication of Christianity, which the
   ancient church has bequeathed to us, and forms a worthy close to her
   literary contest with Graeco-Roman paganism. [125] It is a grand
   funeral discourse upon the departing universal empire of heathenism,
   and a lofty salutation to the approaching universal order of
   Christianity. While even Jerome deplored in the destruction of the city
   the downfall of the empire as the omen of the approaching doom of the
   world, [126] the African father saw in it only a passing revolution
   preparing the way for new conquests of Christianity. Standing at that
   remarkable turning-point of history, he considers the origin, progress,
   and end of the perishable kingdom of this world, and the imperishable
   kingdom of God, from the fall of man to the final judgment, where at
   last they fully and forever separate into hell and heaven. The
   antagonism of the two cities has its root in the highest regions of the
   spirit world, the distinction of good and evil angels; its historical
   evolution commences with Cain and Abel, then proceeds in the progress
   of paganism and Judaism to the birth of Christ, and continues after
   that great epoch to his return in glory. Upon the whole his philosophy
   of history is dualistic, and does not rise to the unity and
   comprehensiveness of the divine plan to which all the kingdoms of this
   world and even Satan himself are made subservient. He hands the one
   city over to God, the other to the demons. Yet he softens the rigor of
   the contrast by the express acknowledgment of shades in the one, and
   rays of light in the other. In the present order of the world the two
   cities touch and influence each other at innumerable points; and as not
   all Jews were citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, so there were on the
   other hand true children of God scattered among the heathen like
   Melchisedek and Job, who were united to the city of God not by a
   visible, but by an invisible celestial tie. In this sublime contrast
   Augustine weaves up the whole material of his Scriptural and
   antiquarian knowledge, his speculation, and his Christian experience,
   but interweaves also many arbitrary allegorical conceits and empty
   subtleties. The first ten books he directs against heathenism, showing
   up the gradual decline of the Roman power as the necessary result of
   idolatry and of a process of moral dissolution, which commenced with
   the introduction of foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage;
   and he represents the calamities and approaching doom of the empire as
   a mighty preaching of repentance to the heathen, and at the same time
   as a wholesome trial of the Christians, and as the birth-throes of a
   new creation. In the last twelve books of this tragedy of history he
   places in contrast the picture of the supernatural state of God,
   founded upon a rock, coming forth renovated and strengthened from all
   the storms and revolutions of time, breathing into wasting humanity an
   imperishable divine life, and entering at last, after the completion of
   this earthly work, into the sabbath of eternity, where believers shall
   rest and see, see and love, love and praise, without end. [127]

   Less important, but still noteworthy and peculiar, is the apologetic
   work of the Gallic presbyter, Salvianus, on providence and the
   government of the world. [128] It was composed about the middle of the
   fifth century (440-455) in answer at once to the charge that
   Christianity occasioned all the misfortunes of the times, and to the
   doubts concerning divine providence, which were spreading among
   Christians themselves. The blame of the divine judgments he places,
   however, not upon the heathens, but upon the Christianity of the day,
   and, in forcible and lively, but turgid and extravagant style, draws an
   extremely unfavorable picture of the moral condition of the Christians,
   especially in Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Africa. His apology for
   Christianity, or rather for the Christian faith in the divine
   government of the world, was also a polemic against the degenerate
   Christians. It was certainly unsuited to convert heathens, but well
   fitted to awaken the church to more dangerous enemies within, and
   stimulate her to that moral self-reform, which puts the crown upon
   victory over outward foes. "The church," says this Jeremiah of his
   time, "which ought everywhere to propitiate God, what does she, but
   provoke him to anger? [129] How many may one meet, even in the church,
   who are not still drunkards, or debauchees, or adulterers, or
   fornicators, or robbers, or murderers, or the like, or all these at
   once, without end? It is even a sort of holiness among Christian
   people, to be less vicious." From the public worship of God, he
   continues, and almost during it, they pass to deeds of shame. Scarce a
   rich man, but would commit murder and fornication. We have lost the
   whole power of Christianity, and offend God the more, that we sin as
   Christians. We are worse than the barbarians and heathen. If the Saxon
   is wild, the Frank faithless, the Goth inhuman, the Alanian drunken,
   the Hun licentious, they are by reason of their ignorance far less
   punishable than we, who, knowing the commandments of God, commit all
   these crimes. He compares the Christians especially of Rome with the
   Arian Goths and Vandals, to the disparagement of the Romans, who add to
   the gross sins of nature the refined vices of civilization, passion for
   theatres, debauchery, and unnatural lewdness. Therefore has the just
   God given them into the hands of the barbarians and exposed them to the
   ravages of the migrating hordes.

   This horrible picture of the Christendom of the fifth century is
   undoubtedly in many respects an exaggeration of ascetic and monastic
   zeal. Yet it is in general not untrue; it presents the dark side of the
   picture, and enables us to understand more fully on moral and
   psychological grounds the final dissolution of the western empire of
   Rome.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [125] Milman says (l.c. book iii. ch. 10) The City of God was
   unquestionably the noblest work, both in its original design and in the
   fulness of its elaborate execution, which the genius of man had as yet
   contributed to the support of Christianity."

   [126] Proleg. in Ezek.: In una urbe totus orbis interiit. Epist. 60:
   Quid salvum est, si Roma perit!

   [127] "Ibi vacabimus, " reads the conclusion, l. xxii. c. 30, "et
   videbimus; videbimus, et amabimus; amabimus, et laudabimus. Ecce quod
   erit in fine sine fine. Nam quia alius noster est finis, nisi pervenire
   ad regnum, cuius nullus est finis." Tillemont and Schröckh give an
   extended analysis of the Civitas Dei. So also more recently Dr. Baur in
   his work on the Christian church from the fourth to the sixth century,
   pp. 43-52. Gibbon, on the other hand, whose great history treats in
   some sense, though in totally different form and in opposite spirit,
   the same theme, only touches this work incidentally, notwithstanding
   his general minuteness. He says in a contemptuous tone, that his
   knowledge of Augustineis limited to the "Confessions," and the "City of
   God." Of course Augustine's philosophy of history is almost as flatly
   opposed to the deism of the English historian, as to the heathen views
   of his contemporaries Ammianus, Eunapius, and Zosimus.

   [128] Of this book: "De gubernatione Dei, et de justo Dei praesentique
   judicio," Isaac Taylor has made very large use in his interesting work
   on "Ancient Christianity" (vol. ii. p. 34 sqq.), to refute the
   idealized Puseyite view of the Nicene and post-Nicene age. But he
   ascribes too great importance to it, and forgets that it is an
   unbalanced picture of the shady side of the church at that time. It is
   true as far as it goes, and yet leaves a false impression. There are
   books which by a partial and one-sided representation make even the
   truth lie.

   [129] "Ipsa Dei ecclesia quae in omnibus esse debet placatrix Dei, quid
   est aliud quam exacerbatrix Dei? aut, praeter paucissimos quosdam, qui
   mala fugiunt, quid est aliud pene omnis coetus Christianorum, quam
   sentina vitiorum?" (P. 91.)
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER III.

   ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC MORALS AND
   RELIGION.

   SOURCES.

   The church laws of the Christian emperors from Constantine to
   Justinian, collected in the Codex Theodosianus of the year 438 (edited,
   with a learned commentary, by Jac. Gothofredus, Lyons, 1668, in six
   vols. fol.; afterwards by J. D. Ritter, Lips. 1736, in seven vols.; and
   more recently, with newly discovered books and fragments, by G. Haenel,
   Bonn, 1842), and in the Codex Justinianeus of 534 (in the numerous
   editions of the Corpus juris civilis Romani). Also Eusebius: Vita
   Constant., and H. Eccl. l. x. On the other hand, the lamentations of
   the church fathers, especially Gregory Naz., Chrysostom, and Augustine
   (in their sermons), over the secularized Christianity of their time.

   LITERATURE.

   C. G. de Rhoer: Dissertationes de effectu religionis Christianae in
   jurisprudentiam Romanam. Groning. 1776. Martini: Die Einführung der
   christl. Religion als Staatsreligion im röm. Reiche durch Constantin.
   Münch. 1813. H. O. de Meysenburg: De Christ. religionis vi et effectu
   in jus civile. Gött. 1828. C. Riffel (R.C.): Gesch. Darstellung des
   Verhältnisses zwischen Kirche u. Staat. Mainz. 1838, vol. i. Troplong:
   De l'influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains. Par.
   1843. P. E. Lind: Christendommens inflydelse paa den sociale
   forfatning. Kjobenh. 1852. B. C. Cooper: The Free Church of Ancient
   Christendom and its Subjugation by Constantine. Lond. 1851(?)

   Comp. also Gibbon, chap. xx. Schröckh, several sections from vol. v.
   onward. Neander, iii. 273-303. Milman, Anc. Christ. Book iv. ch. 1.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 13. The New Position of the Church in the Empire.

   The previous chapter has shown us how Christianity gradually supplanted
   the Graeco-Roman heathenism and became the established religion in the
   empire of the Caesars. Since that time the church and the state, though
   frequently jarring, have remained united in Europe, either on the
   hierarchical basis, with the temporal power under the tutelage of the
   spiritual, or on the caesaro-papal, with the spiritual power merged in
   the temporal; while in the United States of America, since the end of
   the eighteenth century, the two powers have stood peacefully but
   independently side by side. The church could now act upon the state;
   but so could the state act upon the church; and this mutual influence
   became a source of both profit and loss, blessing and curse, on either
   side.

   The martyrs and confessors of the first three centuries, in their
   expectation of the impending end of the world and their desire for the
   speedy return of the Lord, had never once thought of such a thing as
   the great and sudden change, which meets us at the beginning of this
   period in the relation of the Roman state to the Christian church.
   Tertullian had even held the Christian profession to be irreconcilable
   with the office of a Roman emperor. [130] Nevertheless, clergy and
   people very soon and very easily accommodated themselves to the new
   order of things, and recognized in it a reproduction of the theocratic
   constitution of the people of God under the ancient covenant. Save that
   the dissenting sects, who derived no benefit from this union, but were
   rather subject to persecution from the state and from the established
   Catholicism, the Donatists for an especial instance, protested against
   the intermeddling of the temporal power with religious concerns. [131]
   The heathen, who now came over in a mass, had all along been accustomed
   to a union of politics with religion, of the imperial with the
   sacerdotal dignity. They could not imagine a state without some cultus,
   whatever might be its name. And as heathenism had outlived itself in
   the empire, and Judaism with its national exclusiveness and its
   stationary character was totally disqualified, Christianity must take
   the throne.

   The change was as natural and inevitable as it was great. When
   Constantine planted the standard of the cross upon the forsaken temples
   of the gods, he but followed the irresistible current of history
   itself. Christianity had already, without a stroke of sword or of
   intrigue, achieved over the false religion the internal victory of
   spirit over matter, of truth over falsehood, of faith over
   superstition, of the worship of God over idolatry, of morality over
   corruption. Under a three hundred years' oppression, it had preserved
   its irrepressible moral vigor, and abundantly earned its new social
   position. It could not possibly continue a despised sect, a homeless
   child of the wilderness, but, like its divine founder on the third day
   after his crucifixion, it must rise again, take the reins of the world
   into its hands, and, as an all-transforming principle, take state,
   science, and art to itself, to breathe into them a higher life and
   consecrate them to the service of God. The church, of course, continues
   to the end a servant, as Christ himself came not to be ministered unto,
   but to minister; and she must at all times suffer persecution,
   outwardly or inwardly, from the ungodly world. Yet is she also the
   bride of the Son of God, therefore of royal blood; and she is to make
   her purifying and sanctifying influence felt upon all orders of natural
   life and all forms of human society. And from this influence the state,
   of course, is not excepted. Union with the state is no more necessarily
   a profanation of holy things than union with science and art, which, in
   fact, themselves proceed from God, and must subserve his glory.

   On the other hand, the state, as a necessary and divine institution for
   the protection of person and property, for the administration of law
   and justice, and for the promotion of earthly weal, could not possibly
   persist forever in her hostility to Christianity, but must at least
   allow it a legal existence and free play; and if she would attain a
   higher development and better answer her moral ends than she could in
   union with idolatry, she must surrender herself to its influence. The
   kingdom of the Father, to which the state belongs, is not essentially
   incompatible with the church, the kingdom of the Son; rather does "the
   Father draw to the Son," and the Son leads back to the Father, till God
   become "all in all." Henceforth should kings again be nursing fathers,
   and queens nursing mothers to the church, [132] and the prophecy begin
   to be fulfilled: "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of
   our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." [133]

   The American separation of church and state, even if regarded as the
   best settlement of the true relation of the two, is not in the least
   inconsistent with this view. It is not a return to the
   pre-Constantinian basis, with its spirit of persecution, but rests upon
   the mutual reverential recognition and support of the two powers, and
   must be regarded as the continued result of that mighty revolution of
   the fourth century.

   But the elevation of Christianity as the religion of the state presents
   also an opposite aspect to our contemplation. It involved great risk of
   degeneracy to the church. The Roman state, with its laws, institutions,
   and usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism, and could not be
   transformed by a magical stroke. The christianizing of the state
   amounted therefore in great measure to a paganizing and secularizing of
   the church. The world overcame the church, as much as the church
   overcame the world, and the temporal gain of Christianity was in many
   respects cancelled by spiritual loss. The mass of the Roman empire was
   baptized only with water, not with the Spirit and fire of the gospel,
   and it smuggled heathen manners and practices into the sanctuary under
   a new name. The very combination of the cross with the military ensign
   by Constantine was a most doubtful omen, portending an unhappy mixture
   of the temporal and the spiritual powers, the kingdom which is of the
   earth, and that which is from heaven. The settlement of the boundary
   between the two powers, which, with all their unity, remain as
   essentially distinct as body and soul, law and gospel, was itself a
   prolific source of errors and vehement strifes about jurisdiction,
   which stretch through all the middle age, and still repeat themselves
   in these latest times, save where the amicable American separation has
   thus far forestalled collision.

   Amidst all the bad consequences of the union of church and state,
   however, we must not forget that the deeper spirit of the gospel has
   ever reacted against the evils and abuses of it, whether under an
   imperial pope or a papal emperor, and has preserved its divine power
   for the salvation of men under every form of constitution. Though
   standing and working in the world, and in many ways linked with it, yet
   is Christianity not of the world, but stands above it.

   Nor must we think the degeneracy of the church began with her union
   with the state. [134] Corruption and apostasy cannot attach to any one
   fact or personage, be he Constantine or Gregory I. or Gregory VII. They
   are rooted in the natural heart of man. They revealed themselves, at
   least in the germ, even in the apostolic age, and are by no means
   avoided, as the condition of America proves, by the separation of the
   two powers. We have among ourselves almost all the errors and abuses of
   the old world, not collected indeed in any one communion, but
   distributed among our various denominations and sects. The history of
   the church presents from the beginning a twofold development of good
   and of evil, an incessant antagonism of light and darkness, truth and
   falsehood, the mystery of godliness and the mystery of iniquity,
   Christianity and Antichrist. According to the Lord's parables of the
   net and of the tares among the wheat, we cannot expect a complete
   separation before the final judgment, though in a relative sense the
   history of the church is a progressive judgment of the church, as the
   history of the world is a judgment of the world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [130] Apologeticus, c. 21 "Sed et Caesares credidissent, si aut
   Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent
   esse Caesares."

   [131] Thus the bishop Donatus of Carthage in 347 rejected the imperial
   commissioners, Paulus and Macarius, with the exclamation: "Quid est
   imperatori cum ecclesia?" See Optatus Milev.: De schismate Donat. l.
   iii. c. 3. The Donatists, however, were the first to invoke the
   imperial intervention in their controversies, and would doubtless have
   spoken very differently, had the decision turned in their favor.

   [132] Is. xlix. 23.

   [133] Rev. xi. 15.

   [134] This view is now very prevalent in America. It was not formerly
   so. Jonathan Edwards, in his "History of Redemption," a practical and
   edifying survey of church history as an unfolding of the plan of
   redemption, even saw in the accession of Constantine a type of the
   future appearing of Christ in the clouds for the redemption of his
   people, and attributed to it the most beneficent results; to wit: "(1)
   The Christian church was thereby wholly delivered from persecution ....
   (2) God now appeared to execute terrible judgments on their enemies
   .... (3) Heathenism now was in a great measure abolished throughout the
   Roman empire .... (4) The Christian church was brought into a state of
   great peace and prosperity." ... "This revolution," he further says, p.
   312, "was the greatest that had occurred since the flood. Satan, the
   prince of darkness, that king and god of the heathen world, was cast
   out. The roaring lion was conquered by the Lamb of God in the strongest
   dominion he ever had. This was a remarkable accomplishment of Jerem. x.
   11: 'The gods that have not made the heaven and the earth, even they
   shall perish from the earth and from the heavens.' " This work, still
   much read in America and England, was written, to be sure, Iong before
   the separation of church and state in New England, viz., in 1739 (first
   printed in Edinburgh in 1774, twenty-six years after the author's
   death). But the great difference of the judgment of this renowned
   Puritan divine from the prevailing American opinion of the present day
   is an interesting proof that our view of history is very much
   determined by the ecclesiastical circumstances in which we live, and at
   the same time that the whole question of church and state is not at all
   essential in Christian theology and ethics. In America all confessions,
   even the Roman Catholics, are satisfied with the separation, while in
   Europe with few exceptions it is the reverse.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 14. Rights and Privileges of the Church. Secular Advantages.

   The conversion of Constantine and the gradual establishment of
   Christianity as the religion of the state had first of all the
   important effect of giving the church not only the usual rights of a
   legal corporation, which she possesses also in America, and here
   without distinction of confessions, but at the same time the peculiar
   privileges, which the heathen worship and priesthood had heretofore
   enjoyed. These rights and privileges she gradually secured either by
   tacit concession or through special laws of the Christian emperors as
   laid down in the collections of the Theodosian and Justinian Codes.
   [135] These were limited, however, as we must here at the outset
   observe, exclusively to the catholic or orthodox church. [136] The
   heretical and schismatic sects without distinction, excepting the
   Arians during their brief ascendency under Arian emperors, were now
   worse off than they had been before, and were forbidden the free
   exercise of their worship even under Constantine upon pain of fines and
   confiscation, and from the time of Theodosius and Justinian upon pain
   of death. Equal patronage of all Christian parties was totally foreign
   to the despotic uniformity system of the Byzantine emperors and the
   ecclesiastical exclusiveness and absolutism of the popes. Nor can it be
   at all consistently carried out upon the state-church basis; for every
   concession to dissenters loosens the bond between the church and the
   state.

   The immunities and privileges, which were conferred upon the catholic
   church in the Roman empire from the time of Constantine by imperial
   legislation, may be specified as follows:

   1. The exemption of the clergy from most public burdens.

   Among these were obligatory public services, [137] such as military
   duty, low manual labor, the bearing of costly dignities, and in a
   measure taxes for the real estate of the church. The exemption, [138]
   which had been enjoyed, indeed, not by the heathen priests alone, but
   at least partially by physicians also and rhetoricians, and the Jewish
   rulers of synagogues, was first granted by Constantine in the year 313
   to the catholic clergy in Africa, and afterwards, in 319, extended
   throughout the empire. But this led many to press into the clerical
   office without inward call, to the prejudice of the state; and in 320
   the emperor made a law prohibiting the wealthy [139] from entering the
   ministry, and limiting the increase of the clergy, on the singular
   ground, that "the rich should bear the burdens of the world, the poor
   be supported by the property of the church." Valentinian I. issued a
   similar law in 364. Under Valentinian II. and Theodosius I. the rich
   were admitted to the spiritual office on condition of assigning their
   property to others, who should fulfill the demands of the state in
   their stead. But these arbitrary laws were certainly not strictly
   observed.

   Constantine also exempted the church from the land tax, but afterwards
   revoked this immunity; and his successors likewise were not uniform in
   this matter. Ambrose, though one of the strongest advocates of the
   rights of the church, accedes to the fact and the justice of the
   assessment of church lands; [140] but the hierarchy afterwards claimed
   for the church a divine right of exemption from all taxation.

   2. The enrichment and endowment of the church.

   Here again Constantine led the way. He not only restored (in 313) the
   buildings and estates, which had been confiscated in the Diocletian
   persecution, but granted the church also the right to receive legacies
   (321), and himself made liberal contributions in money and grain to the
   support of the clergy and the building of churches in Africa, [141] in
   the Holy Land, in Nicomedia, Antioch, and Constantinople. Though this,
   be it remembered, can be no great merit in an absolute monarch, who is
   lord of the public treasury as he is of his private purse, and can
   afford to be generous at the expense of his subjects. He and his
   successors likewise gave to the church the heathen temples and their
   estates and the public property of heretics; but these more frequently
   were confiscated to the civil treasury or squandered on favorites.
   Wealthy subjects, some from pure piety, others from motives of
   interest, conveyed their property to the church, often to the prejudice
   of the just claims of their kindred. Bishops and monks not rarely used
   unworthy influences with widows and dying persons; though Augustine
   positively rejected every legacy, which deprived a son of his rights.
   Valentinian I. found it necessary to oppose the legacy-hunting of the
   clergy, particularly in Rome, with a law of the year 370, [142] and
   Jerome acknowledges there was good reason for it. [143] The wealth of
   the church was converted mostly into real estate, or at least secured
   by it. And the church soon came to own the tenth part of all the landed
   property. This land, to be sure, had long been worthless or neglected,
   but under favorable conditions rose in value with uncommon rapidity. At
   the time of Chrysostom, towards the close of the fourth century, the
   church of Antioch was strong enough to maintain entirely or in part
   three thousand widows and consecrated virgins besides many poor, sick,
   and strangers. [144] The metropolitan churches of Rome and Alexandria
   were the most wealthy. The various churches of Rome in the sixth
   century, besides enormous treasures in money and gold and silver vases,
   owned many houses and lands not only in Italy and Sicily, but even in
   Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt. [145] And when John, who bears the
   honorable distinction of the Almsgiver for his unlimited liberality to
   the poor, became patriarch of Alexandria (606), he found in the church
   treasury eight thousand pounds of gold, and himself received ten
   thousand, though be retained hardly an ordinary blanket for himself,
   and is said on one occasion to have fed seven thousand five hundred
   poor at once. [146]

   The control of the ecclesiastical revenues vested in the bishops. The
   bishops distributed the funds according, to the prevailing custom into
   three or four parts: for themselves, for their clergy, for the current
   expenses of worship, and for the poor. They frequently exposed
   themselves to the suspicion of avarice and nepotism. The best of them,
   like Chrysostom and Augustine, were averse to this concernment with
   earthly property, since it often conflicted with their higher duties;
   and they preferred the poverty of earlier times, because the present
   abundant revenues diminished private beneficence.

   And most certainly this opulence had two sides. It was a source both of
   profit and of loss to the church. According to the spirit of its
   proprietors and its controllers, it might be used for the furtherance
   of the kingdom of God, the building of churches, the support of the
   needy, and the founding of charitable institutions for the poor, the
   sick, for widows and orphans, for destitute strangers and aged persons,
   [147] or perverted to the fostering of indolence and luxury, and thus
   promote moral corruption and decay. This was felt by serious minds even
   in the palmy days of the external power of the hierarchy. Dante,
   believing Constantine to be the author of the pope's temporal
   sovereignty, on the ground of the fictitious donation to Sylvester,
   bitterly exclaimed:


   "Your gods ye make of silver and of gold;

   And wherein differ from idolaters,

   Save that their god is one--yours hundred fold?


   Ah, Constantine! what evils caused to flow,

   Not thy conversion, but that plenteous dower

   Thou on the first rich Father didst bestow!" [148]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [135] Comp. § 18.

   [136] So early as 326 Constantine promulgated the law (Cod. Theodos.
   lib. xvi. tit. 5, l. 1): "Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis
   indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet.
   Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis
   alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et
   subjici." Yet he was lenient towards the Novatians, adding in the same
   year respecting them (C. Theodos. xvi. 5, 2): "Novatianos non adeo
   comperimus praedamnatos, ut iis quae petiverunt, crederemus minime
   largienda. Itaque ecclesiae suae domos, et loca sepulcris apta sine
   inquietudine eos firmiter possidere praecipimus." Comp. the 8th canon
   of the Council of Nice, which likewise deals with them indulgently.

   [137] The munera publica, or leitourgiai, attaching in part to the
   person as a subject of the empire, in part to the possession of
   property (munera patrimoniorum).

   [138] Immunitas, aleitourgesia.

   [139] The decuriones and curiales.

   [140] "Si tributum petit Imperator," says he in the Orat. de basilicas
   non tradendis haereticis, "non negamus; agri ecclesiae solvunt
   tributum, solvimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et qum sunt Dei Deo;
   tributum Caesaris est; non negatur." Baronius (ad ann. 387) endeavors
   to prove that this tribute was meant by Ambrose merely as an act of
   love, not of duty!

   [141] So early as 314 he caused to be paid to the bishop Caecilian of
   Carthage 3,000 folles (trischilious pholeis£18,000) from the public
   treasury of the province for the catholic churches in Africa, Numidia,
   and Mauritania, promising further gifts for similar purposes. Euseb: H.
   E. x. 6, and Vit. Const. iv. 28.

   [142] In an edict to Damasus, bishop of Rome. Cod. Theod. xvi. 2, 20:
   "Ecclesiastici ... viduaram ac pupillarum domos non adeant," etc.

   [143] Epist. 34 (al. 2) ad Nepotianum, where he says of this law: "Nec
   de lege conqueror, sed doleo, cur meruerimus hanc legem;" and of the
   clergy of his time: "Ignominia omnium sacerdotum est, propriis studere
   divitiis," etc.

   [144] Chrys. Hom. 66 in Matt. (vii. p. 658).

   [145] Comp. the Epistles of Gregory the Great at the end of our period.

   [146] See the Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii (the next to the last
   catholic patriarch of Alexandria) in the Acta Sanct. Bolland. ad 23
   Jan.

   [147] The ptochotropheia, nosokomeia, orphanotropheia, gerokomeia and
   xenones or xenodocheia, as they were called; which all sprang from the
   church. Especially favored was the Basilias for sick and strangers in
   Caesarea, named after its founder, the bishop Basil the Great. Basil.
   Ep. 94. Gregor. Naz. Orat. 27 and 30.

   [148] Inferno, canto xix. vs. 112-118, as translated by Wright (with
   two slight alterations). Milton, in his prose works, has translated
   this passage as well as that of Ariosto, where he humorously places the
   donation of Constantinein the moon among the things lost or abused on
   earth: "Ah, Constantine! of how much ill was cause, Not thy conversion,
   but those rich domains That the first wealthy pope received of thee."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 15. Support of the Clergy.

   3. The better support of the clergy was another advantage connected
   with the new position of Christianity in the empire.

   Hitherto the clergy had been entirely dependent on the voluntary
   contributions of the Christians, and the Christians were for the most
   part poor. Now they received a fixed income from the church funds and
   from imperial and municipal treasuries. To this was added the
   contribution of first-fruits and tithes, which, though not as yet
   legally enforced, arose as a voluntary custom at a very early period,
   and probably in churches of Jewish origin existed from the first, after
   the example of the Jewish law. [149] Where these means of support were
   not sufficient, the clergy turned to agriculture or some other
   occupation; and so late as the fifth century many synods recommended
   this means of subsistence, although the Apostolical Canons prohibited
   the engagement of the clergy in secular callings under penalty of
   deposition. [150]

   This improvement, also, in the external condition of the clergy was
   often attended with a proportional degeneracy in their moral character.
   It raised them above oppressive and distracting cares for livelihood,
   made them independent, and permitted them to devote their whole
   strength to the duties of their office; but it also favored ease and
   luxury, allured a host of unworthy persons into the service of the
   church, and checked the exercise of free giving among the people. The
   better bishops, like Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysosotom,
   Theodoret, Ambrose, Augustine, lived in ascetic simplicity, and used
   their revenues for the public good; while others indulged their vanity,
   their love of magnificence, and their voluptuousness. The heathen
   historian Ammianus gives the country clergy in general the credit of
   simplicity, temperance, and virtue, while he represents the Roman
   hierarchy, greatly enriched by the gifts of matrons, as extreme in the
   luxury of their dress and their more than royal banquets; [151] and St.
   Jerome agrees with him. [152] The distinguished heathen prefect,
   Praetextatus, said to Pope Damasus, that for the price of the bishopric
   of Rome he himself might become a Christian at once. The bishops of
   Constantinople, according to the account of Gregory Nazianzen, [153]
   who himself held that see for a short time, were not behind their Roman
   colleagues in this extravagance, and vied with the most honorable
   functionaries of the state in pomp and sumptuous diet. The cathedrals
   of Constantinople and Carthage had hundreds of priests, deacons,
   deaconesses, subdeacons, prelectors, singers, and janitors. [154]

   It is worthy of notice, that, as we have already intimated, the two
   greatest church fathers gave the preference in principle to the
   voluntary system in the support of the church and the ministry, which
   prevailed before the Nicene era, and which has been restored in modern
   times in the United States of America. Chrysostom no doubt perceived
   that under existing circumstances the wants of the church could not
   well be otherwise supplied, but he was decidedly averse to the
   accumulation of treasure by the church, and said to his hearers in
   Antioch: "The treasure of the church should be with you all, and it is
   only your hardness of heart that requires her to hold earthly property
   and to deal in houses and lands. Ye are unfruitful in good works, and
   so the ministers of God must meddle in a thousand matters foreign to
   their office. In the days of the apostles people might likewise have
   given them houses and lands; why did they prefer to sell the houses and
   lands and give the proceeds? Because this was without doubt the better
   way. Your fathers would have preferred that you should give alms of
   your incomes, but they feared that your avarice might leave the poor to
   hunger; hence the present order of things." [155] Augustine desired
   that his people in Hippo should take back the church property and
   support the clergy and the poor by free gifts. [156]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [149] Lev. xxvii. 30-33; Nu. xviii. 20-24; Deut. xiv. 22 sqq. 2 Chron.
   xxxi. 4 sqq.

   [150] . Constit. Apost. lib. viii. cap. 47, can. 6 (p. 239, ed.
   Ueltzen): Episkopos e presbuteros e diakonos kosmikas phrontidas me
   analambaneto; ei de me, kathaireistho.

   [151] Lib. xxvii. c. 3.

   [152] Hieron. Ep. 34 (al. 2) et passim.

   [153] Orat. 32.

   [154] The cathedral of Constantinople fell under censure for the
   excessive number of its clergy and subordinate officers, so that
   Justinian reduced it to five hundred and twenty-five, of which probably
   more than half were useless. Comp. Iust. Novell. ciii.

   [155] Homil. 85 in Matt. (vii. 808 sq.). Hom. 21 in 1 Cor. 7 (x. 190).
   Comp. also De sacerdot. l. iii. c. 16.

   [156] Possidius, in Vita Aug. c. 23: "Alloquebatur plebem Dei, malle se
   ex collationibus plebes Dei vivere quam illarum possessionum curam vel
   gubernationem pati, et paratum se esse illis cedere, ut eo modo omnes
   Dei servi et ministri viverent."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 16. Episcopal Jurisdiction and Intercession.

   4. We proceed to the legal validity, of the episcopal jurisdiction,
   which likewise dates from the time of Constantine.

   After the manner of the Jewish synagogues, and according to the
   exhortation of St. Paul, [157] the Christians were accustomed from the
   beginning to settle their controversies before the church, rather than
   carry them before heathen tribunals; but down to the time of
   Constantine the validity, of the bishop's decision depended on the
   voluntary, submission of both parties. Now this decision was invested
   with the force of law, and in spiritual matters no appeal could be
   taken from it to the civil court. Constantine himself, so early as 314,
   rejected such an appeal in the Donatist controversy with the
   significant declaration: "The judgment of the priests must be regarded
   as the judgment of Christ himself." [158] Even a sentence of
   excommunication was final; and Justinian allowed appeal only to the
   metropolitan, not to the civil tribunal. Several councils, that of
   Chalcedon, for example, in 451, went so far as to threaten clergy, who
   should avoid the episcopal tribunal or appeal from it to the civil,
   with deposition. Sometimes the bishops called in the help of the state,
   where the offender contemned the censure of the church. Justinian I.
   extended the episcopal jurisdiction also to the monasteries. Heraclius
   subsequently (628) referred even criminal causes among the clergy to
   the bishops, thus dismissing the clergy thenceforth entirely from the
   secular courts; though of course holding them liable for the physical
   penalty, when convicted of capital crime, [159] as the ecclesiastical
   jurisdiction ended with deposition and excommunication. Another
   privilege, granted by Theodosius to the clergy, was, that they should
   not be compelled by torture to bear testimony before the civil
   tribunal.

   This elevation of the power and influence of the bishops was a salutary
   check upon the jurisdiction of the state, and on the whole conduced to
   the interests of justice and humanity; though it also nourished
   hierarchical arrogance and entangled the bishops, to the prejudice of
   their higher functions, in all manner of secular suits, in which they
   were frequently called into consultation. Chrysostom complains that
   "the arbitrator undergoes incalculable vexations, much labor, and more
   difficulties than the public judge. It is hard to discover the right,
   but harder not to violate it when discovered. Not labor and difficulty
   alone are connected with office, but also no little danger." [160]
   Augustine, too, who could make better use of his time, felt this part
   of his official duty a burden, which nevertheless he bore for love to
   the church. [161] Others handed over these matters to a subordinate
   ecclesiastic, or even, like Silvanus, bishop of Troas, to a layman.
   [162]

   5. Another advantage resulting from the alliance of the church with the
   empire was the episcopal right of intercession.

   The privilege of interceding with the secular power for criminals,
   prisoners, and unfortunates of every kind had belonged to the heathen
   priests, and especially to the vestals, and now passed to the Christian
   ministry, above all to the bishops, and thenceforth became an essential
   function of their office. A church in Gaul about the year 460 opposed
   the ordination of a monk to the bishopric, because, being unaccustomed
   to intercourse with secular magistrates, though he might intercede with
   the Heavenly Judge for their souls, he could not with the earthly for
   their bodies. The bishops were regarded particularly as the guardians
   of widows and orphans, and the control of their property was intrusted
   to them. Justinian in 529 assigned to them also a supervision of the
   prisons, which they were to visit on Wednesdays and Fridays, the days
   of Christ's passion.

   The exercise of this right of intercession, one may well suppose, often
   obstructed the course of justice; but it also, in innumerable cases,
   especially in times of cruel, arbitrary despotism, protected the
   interests of innocence, humanity, and mercy. Sometimes, by the powerful
   pleadings of bishops with governors and emperors, whole provinces were
   rescued from oppressive taxation and from the revenge of conquerors.
   Thus Flavian of Antioch in 387 averted the wrath of Theodosius on
   occasion of a rebellion, journeying under the double burden of age and
   sickness even to Constantinople to the emperor himself, and with
   complete success, as an ambassador of their common Lord, reminding him
   of the words: "If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
   will also forgive you." [163]

   6. With the right of intercession was closely connected the right of
   asylum in churches.

   In former times many of the heathen temples and altars, with some
   exceptions, were held inviolable as places of refuge; and the Christian
   churches now inherited also this prerogative. The usage, with some
   precautions against abuse, was made law by Theodosius II. in 431, and
   the ill treatment of an unarmed fugitive in any part of the church
   edifice, or even upon the consecrated ground, was threatened with the
   penalty of death. [164]

   Thus slaves found sure refuge from the rage of their masters, debtors
   from the persecution of inexorable creditors, women and virgins from
   the approaches of profligates, the conquered from the sword of their
   enemies, in the holy places, until the bishop by his powerful mediation
   could procure justice or mercy. The beneficence of this law, which had
   its root not in superstition alone, but in the nobler sympathies of the
   people, comes most impressively to view amidst the ragings of the great
   migration and of the frequent intestine wars. [165]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [157] 1 Cor. vi. 1-6.

   [158] "Sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ut si ipse Dominus
   residens judicet. Optatus Milev.: De schism. Donat. f. 184.

   [159] Even Constantine, however, before the council of Nice, had
   declared, that should he himself detect a bishop in the act of
   adultery, he would rather throw over him his imperial mantle than bring
   scandal on the church by punishing a clergyman.

   [160] De sacerd. l. iii. c. 18, at the beginning.

   [161] In Psalm. xxv. (vol. iv. 115) and Epist. 213, where he complains
   that before and after noon he was beset and distracted by the members
   of his church with temporal concerns, though they had promised to leave
   him undisturbed five days in the week, to finish some theological
   labors. Comp. Neander, iii. 291 sq. (ed. Torrey, ii. 139 sq.).

   [162] Socrat. l. vii. c. 37.

   [163] Matt. vi. 14.

   [164] Cod. Theodos. ix. 45, 1-4. Comp. Socrat. vii. 33.

   [165] "The rash violence of despotism," says even Gibbon, "was
   suspended by the mild interposition of the church; and the lives or
   fortunes of the most eminent subjects might be protected by the
   mediation of the bishop."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 17. Legal Sanction of Sunday.

   7. The civil sanction of the observance of Sunday and other festivals
   of the church.

   The state, indeed, should not and cannot enforce this observance upon
   any one, but may undoubtedly and should prohibit the public disturbance
   and profanation of the Christian Sabbath, and protect the Christians in
   their right and duty of its proper observance. Constantine in 321
   forbade the sitting of courts and all secular labor in towns on "the
   venerable day of the sun," as he expresses himself, perhaps with
   reference at once to the sun-god, Apollo, and to Christ, the true Sun
   of righteousness; to his pagan and his Christian subjects. But he
   distinctly permitted the culture of farms and vineyards in the country,
   because frequently this could be attended to on no other day so well;
   [166] though one would suppose that the hard-working peasantry were the
   very ones who most needed the day of rest. Soon afterward, in June,
   321, he allowed the manumission of slaves on Sunday; [167] as this,
   being an act of benevolence, was different from ordinary business, and
   might be altogether appropriate to the day of resurrection and
   redemption. According to Eusebius, Constantine also prohibited all
   military exercises on Sunday, and at the same time enjoined the
   observance of Friday in memory of the death of Christ. [168]

   Nay, he went so far, in well-meaning but mistaken zeal, as to require
   of his soldiers, even the pagan ones, the positive observance of
   Sunday, by pronouncing at a signal the following prayer, which they
   mechanically learned: "Thee alone we acknowledge as God; thee we
   confess as king; to thee we call as our helper; from thee we have
   received victories; through thee we have conquered enemies. Thee we
   thank for good received; from thee we hope for good to come. Thee we
   all most humbly beseech to keep our Constantine and his God-fearing
   sons through long life healthy and victorious." [169] Though this
   formula was held in a deistical generalness, yet the legal injunction
   of it lay clearly beyond the province of the civil power, trespassed on
   the rights of conscience, and unavoidably encouraged hypocrisy and
   empty formalism.

   Later emperors declared the profanation of Sunday to be sacrilege, and
   prohibited also the collecting of taxes and private debts (368 and
   386), and even theatrical and circus performances, on Sunday and the
   high festivals (386 and 425). [170] But this interdiction of public
   amusements, on which a council of Carthage (399 or 401) with reason
   insisted, was probably never rigidly enforced, and was repeatedly
   supplanted by the opposite practice, which gradually prevailed all over
   Europe. [171]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [166] This exception is entirely unnoticed by many church histories,
   but stands in the same law of 321 in the Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit.
   12, de feriis, l. 3: "Omnes judices, urbanaeque plebes, et cunctarum
   artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi
   agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter
   evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineae scrobibus
   mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione
   concessa." Such work was formerly permitted, too, on the pagan feast
   days. Comp. Virgil. Georg. i. v. 268 sqq. Cato, De re rust. c. 2.

   [167] Cod. Theodos. lib. ii. tit. 8. l. 1: "Emancipandi et manumittendi
   die festo cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus non
   prohibeantur."

   [168] Eus. Vit. Const. iv. 18-20. Comp. Sozom. i. 8. In our times
   military parades and theatrical exhibitions in Paris, Vienna, Berlin,
   and other European cities are so frequent on no other day as on the
   Lord's day! In France, political elections are usually held on the
   Sabbath!

   [169] Eus. Vit. Const. l. iv. c. 20. The formulary was prescribed in
   the Latin language, as Eusebius says in c. 19. He is speaking of the
   whole army (comp. c. 18), and it may presumed that many of the soldiers
   were heathen.

   [170] The second law against opening theatres on Sundays and festivals
   (a.d.425) in the Cod. Theodos. l. xv. tit. 7, I. 5, says expressly:
   "Omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate per universas urbes ...
   denegata, totae Christianorum ac fidelium mentes Dei cultibus
   occupentur."

   [171] As Chrysostom, at the end of the fourth century and the beginning
   of the fifth, often complains that the theatre is better attended than
   the church; so down to this day the same is true in almost all the
   large cities on the continent of Europe. Only in England and the United
   States, under the influence of Calvinism and Puritanism, are the
   theatres closed on Sunday.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 18. Influence of Christianity on Civil Legislation. The Justinian
   Code.

   Comp. on this subject particularly the works cited at § 13, sub ii, by
   Rhoer, Meysenburg, and Troplong; also Gibbon, chap. xliv (an admirable
   summary of the Roman law), Milman: Lat. Christianity, vol. I. B. iii.
   chap. 5, and in part the works of Schmidt and Chastel on the influence
   of Christianity upon society in the Roman empire, quoted in vol. i. §
   86.

   While in this way the state secured to the church the well-deserved
   rights of a legal corporation, the church exerted in turn a most
   beneficent influence on the state, liberating it by degrees from the
   power of heathen laws and customs, from the spirit of egotism, revenge,
   and retaliation, and extending its care beyond mere material prosperity
   to the higher moral interests of society. In the previous period we
   observed the contrast between Christian morality and heathen corruption
   in the Roman empire. [172] We are now to see how the principles of
   Christian morality gained public recognition, and began at least in
   some degree to rule the civil and political life.

   As early as the second century, under the better heathen emperors, and
   evidently under the indirect, struggling, yet irresistible influence of
   the Christian spirit, legislation took a reformatory, humane turn,
   which was carried by the Christian emperors as far as it could be
   carried on the basis of the ancient Graeco-Roman civilization. Now,
   above all, the principle of justice and equity, humanity and love,
   began to assert itself in the state. For Christianity, with its
   doctrines of man's likeness to God, of the infinite value of
   personality, of the original unity of the human race, and of the common
   redemption through Christ, first brought the universal rights of man to
   bear in opposition to the exclusive national spirit, the heartless
   selfishness, and the political absolutism of the old world, which
   harshly separated nations and classes, and respected man only as a
   citizen, while at the same time it denied the right of citizenship to
   the great mass of slaves, foreigners, and barbarians. [173]

   Christ himself began his reformation with the lowest orders of the
   people, with fishermen and taxgatherers, with the poor, the lame, the
   blind, with demoniacs and sufferers of every kind, and raised them
   first to the sense of their dignity and their high destiny. So now the
   church wrought in the state and through the state for the elevation of
   the oppressed and the needy, and of those classes which under the reign
   of heathenism were not reckoned at all in the body politic, but were
   heartlessly trodden under foot. The reformatory motion was thwarted, it
   is true, to a considerable extent, by popular custom, which is stronger
   than law, and by the structure of society in the Roman empire, which
   was still essentially heathen and doomed to dissolution. But reform was
   at last set in motion, and could not be turned back even by the
   overthrow of the empire; it propagated itself among the German tribes.
   And although even in Christian states the old social maladies are ever
   breaking forth from corrupt human nature, sometimes with the violence
   of revolution, Christianity is ever coming in to restrain, to purify,
   to heal, and to console, curbing the wild passions of tyrants and of
   populace, vindicating the persecuted, mitigating the horrors of war,
   and repressing incalculable vice in public and in private life among
   Christian people. The most cursory comparison of Christendom with the
   most civilized heathen and Mohammedan countries affords ample testimony
   of this.

   Here again the reign of Constantine is a turning point. Though an
   oriental despot, and but imperfectly possessed with the earnestness of
   Christian morality, he nevertheless enacted many laws, which distinctly
   breathe the spirit of Christian justice and humanity: the abolition of
   the punishment of crucifixion, the prohibition of gladiatorial games
   and cruel rites, the discouragement of infanticide, and the
   encouragement of the emancipation of slaves. Eusebius says he improved
   most of the old laws or replaced them by new ones. [174] Henceforward
   we feel beneath the toga of the Roman lawgiver the warmth of a
   Christian heart. We perceive the influence of the evangelical preaching
   and exhortations of the father of monasticism out of the Egyptian
   desert to the rulers of the world, Constantine and his sons: that they
   should show justice and mercy to the poor, and remember the judgment to
   come.

   Even Julian, with all his hatred of the Christians, could not entirely
   renounce the influence of his education and of the reigning spirit of
   the age, but had to borrow from the church many of his measures for the
   reformation of heathenism. He recognized especially the duty of
   benevolence toward all men, charity to the poor, and clemency to
   prisoners; though this was contrary to the heathen sentiment, and
   though he proved himself anything but benevolent toward the Christians.
   But then the total failure of his philanthropic plans and measures
   shows that the true love for man can thrive only in Christian soil. And
   it is remarkable, that, with all this involuntary concession to
   Christianity, Julian himself passed not a single law in line with the
   progress of natural rights and equity. [175]

   His successors trod in the footsteps of Constantine, and to the end of
   the West Roman empire kept the civil legislation under the influence of
   the Christian spirit, though thus often occasioning conflicts with the
   still lingering heathen element, and sometimes temporary apostasy and
   reaction. We observe also, in remarkable contradiction, that while the
   laws were milder in some respects, they were in others even more severe
   and bloody than ever before: a paradox to be explained no doubt in part
   by the despotic character of the Byzantine government, and in part by
   the disorders of the time. [176]

   It now became necessary to collect the imperial ordinances [177] in a
   codex or corpus juris. Of the first two attempts of this kind, made in
   the middle of the fourth century, only some fragments remain. [178] But
   we have the Codex Theodosianus, which Theodosius II. caused to be made
   by several jurists between the years 429 and 438. It contains the laws
   of the Christian emperors from Constantine down, adulterated with many
   heathen elements; and it was sanctioned by Valentinian III. for the
   western empire. A hundred years later, in the flourishing period of the
   Byzantine state-church despotism, Justinian I., who, by the way, cannot
   be acquitted of the reproach of capricious and fickle law-making,
   committed to a number of lawyers, under the direction of the renowned
   Tribonianus, [179] the great task of making a complete revised and
   digested collection of the Roman law from the time of Hadrian to his
   own reign; and thus arose, in the short period of seven years
   (527-534), through the combination of the best talent and the best
   facilities, the celebrated Codex Justinianeus, which thenceforth became
   the universal law of the Roman empire, the sole text book in the
   academies at Rome, Constantinople, and Berytus, and the basis of the
   legal relations of the greater part of Christian Europe to this day.
   [180]

   This body of Roman law [181] is an important source of our knowledge of
   the Christian life in its relations to the state and its influence upon
   it. It is, to be sure, in great part the legacy of pagan Rome, which
   was constitutionally endowed with legislative and administrative
   genius, and thereby as it were predestined to universal empire. But it
   received essential modification through the orientalizing change in the
   character of the empire from the time of Constantine, through the
   infusion of various Germanic elements, through the influence of the law
   of Moses, and, in its best points, through the spirit of Christianity.
   The church it fully recognizes as a legitimate institution and of
   divine authority, and several of its laws were enacted at the direct
   instance of bishops. So the "Common Law," the unwritten traditional law
   of England and America, though descending from the Anglo-Saxon times,
   therefore from heathen Germandom, has ripened under the influence of
   Christianity and the church, and betrays this influence even far more
   plainly than the Roman code, especially in all that regards the
   individual and personal rights and liberties of man.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [172] Vol. i §§ 86-93.

   [173] Comp. Lactantius: Inst. divin. l. v. c. 15.

   [174] Vit. Const. l. iv. c. 26, where the most important laws of
   Constantine are recapitulated. Even the heathen Libanius (Basil. ii. p.
   146) records that under Constantine and his sons legislation was much
   more favorable to the lower classes: though he accounts for this only
   by the personal clemency of the emperors.

   [175] Troplong, p. 127. C. Schmidt, 378.

   [176] Comp. de Rhoer, p. 59 sqq. The origin of this increased severity
   of penal laws is, at all events, not to be sought in the church; for in
   the fourth and fifth centuries she was still rather averse to the death
   penalty. Comp. Ambros. Ep. 25 and 26 (al. 51 and 52), and Augustine,
   Ep. 153 ad Macedonium.

   [177] Constitutiones or Leges. If answers to questions, they were
   called Rescripta; if spontaneous decrees, Edicta.

   [178] The Codex Gregorianus and Codex Hermogenianus; so called from the
   compilers, two private lawyers. They contained the rescripts and edicts
   of the heathen emperors from Hadrian to Constantine, and would
   facilitate a comparison of the heathen legislation with the Christian.

   [179] Tribonianus, a native of Side in Paphlagonia, was an advocate and
   a poet, and rose by his talents, and the favor of Justinian, to be
   quaestor, consul, and at last magister officiorum. Gibbon compares him,
   both for his comprehensive learning and administrative ability and for
   his enormous avarice and venality, with Lord Bacon. But in one point
   these statesmen were very different: while Bacon was a decided
   Christian in his convictions, Tribonianus was accused of pagan
   proclivities and of atheism. In a popular tumult in Constantinople the
   emperor was obliged to dismiss him, but found him indispensable and
   soon restored him.

   [180] The complete Codex Justinianeus, which has long outlasted the
   conquests of that emperor (as Napoleon's Code has outlasted his),
   comprises properly three separate works: (1) The Institutiones, an
   elementary text book of jurisprudence, of the year 533. (2) The Digesta
   or Pandectae (pandektai, complete repository), an abstract of the
   spirit of the whole Roman jurisprudence, according to the decisions of
   the most distinguished jurists of the earlier times, composed in
   530-533. (3) The Codex, first prepared in 528 and 529, but in 534
   reconstructed, enlarged, and improved, and hence called Codex repetitae
   praelectionis; containing 4,648 ordinances in 765 titles, in
   chronological order. To these is added (4) a later Appendix: Novellae
   constitutiones (vearai diataxeis), or simply Novellae (a barbarism);
   that is, 168 decrees of Justinian, subsequently collected from the 1st
   January, 535, to his death in 565, mostly in Greek, or in both Greek
   and Latin. Excepting some of the novels of Justinian, the codex was
   composed in the Latin language, which Justinian and Tribonianus
   understood; but afterward, as this tongue died out in the East, it was
   translated into Greek, and sanctioned in this form by the emperor
   Phocas in 600. The emperor Basil the Macedonian in 876 caused a Greek
   abstract (procheiron ton nomon) to be prepared, which, under the name
   of the Basilicae, gradually supplanted the book of Justinian in the
   Byzantine empire. The Pandects have narrowly escaped destruction. Most
   of the editions and manuscripts of the west (not all, as Gibbon says)
   are taken from the Codex Florentinus, which was transcribed in the
   beginning of the seventh century at Constantinople, and afterward
   carried by the vissitudes of war and trade to Amalfi, to Pisa, and in
   1411 to Florence.

   [181] Called Corpus juris Romanior C. juris civilis, in distinction
   from Corpus juris canonici, the Roman Catholic church law, which is
   based chiefly on the canons of the ancient councils, as the civil law
   is upon the rescripts and edicts of the emperors.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 19. Elevation of Woman and the Family.

   The benign effect of Christianity on legislation in the Graeco-Roman
   empire is especially noticeable in the following points:

   1. In the treatment of women. From the beginning, Christianity labored,
   primarily in the silent way of fact, for the elevation of the female
   sex from the degraded, slavish position, which it occupied in the
   heathen world; [182] and even in this period it produced such
   illustrious models of female virtue as Nonna, Anthusa, and Monica, who
   commanded the highest respect of the heathens themselves. The Christian
   emperors pursued this work, though the Roman legislation stops
   considerably short of the later Germanic in regard to the rights of
   woman. Constantine in 321 granted women the same right as men to
   control their property, except in the sale of their landed estates. At
   the same time, from regard to their modesty, he prohibited the
   summoning them in person before the public tribunal. Theodosius I. in
   390 was the first to allow the mother a certain right of guardianship,
   which had formerly been intrusted exclusively to men. Theodosius II. in
   439 interdicted, but unfortunately with little success, the scandalous
   trade of the lenones, who lived by the prostitution of women, and paid
   a considerable license tax to the state. [183] Woman received
   protection in various ways against the beastly passion of man. The rape
   of consecrated virgins and widows was punishable, from the time of
   Constantine, with death. [184]

   2. In the marriage laws, Constantine gave marriage its due freedom by
   abolishing the old Roman penalties against celibacy and childlessness.
   [185] On the other hand, marriage now came to be restricted under heavy
   penalties by the introduction of the Old Testament prohibitions of
   marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, which subsequently
   were arbitrarily extended even to the relation of cousin down to the
   third remove. [186] Justinian forbade also marriage between godparent
   and godchild, on the ground of spiritual kinship. But better than all,
   the dignity and sanctity of marriage were now protected by restrictions
   upon the boundless liberty of divorce which had obtained from the time
   of Augustus, and had vastly hastened the decay of public morals. Still,
   the strict view of the fathers, who, following the word of Christ,
   recognized adultery alone as a sufficient ground of divorce, could not
   be carried out in the state. [187] The legislation of the emperors in
   this matter wavered between the licentiousness of Rome and the doctrine
   of the church. So late as the fifth century we hear a Christian author
   complain that men exchange wives as they would garments, and that the
   bridal chamber is exposed to sale like a shoe on the market! Justinian
   attempted to bring the public laws up to the wish of the church, but
   found himself compelled to relax them; and his successor allowed
   divorce even on the ground of mutual consent. [188]

   Concubinage was forbidden from the time of Constantine, and adultery
   punished as one of the grossest crimes. [189] Yet here also pagan habit
   ever and anon reacted in practice, and even the law seems to have long
   tolerated the wild marriage which rested only on mutual agreement, and
   was entered into without convenant, dowry, or ecclesiastical sanction.
   [190] Solemnization by the church was not required by the state as the
   condition of a legitimate marriage till the eighth century. Second
   marriage, also, and mixed marriages with heretics and heathens,
   continued to be allowed, notwithstanding the disapproval of the
   stricter church teachers; only marriage with Jews was prohibited, on
   account of their fanatical hatred of the Christians. [191]

   3. The power of fathers over their children, which according to the old
   Roman law extended even to their freedom and life, had been restricted
   by Alexander Severus under the influence of the monarchical spirit,
   which is unfavorable to private jurisdiction, and was still further
   limited under Constantine. This emperor declared the killing of a child
   by its father, which the Pompeian law left unpunished, to be one of the
   greatest crimes. [192] But the cruel and unnatural practice of exposing
   children and selling them into slavery continued for a long time,
   especially among the laboring and agricultural classes. Even the
   indirect measures of Valentinian and Theodosius I. could not eradicate
   the evil. Theodosius in 391 commanded that children which had been sold
   as slaves by their father from poverty, should be free, and that
   without indemnity to the purchasers; and Justinian in 529 gave all
   exposed children without exception their freedom. [193]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [182] On this subject, and on the heathen family life, comp. vol. i. §
   91.

   [183] Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 8: de lenonibus.

   [184] C. Theod. ix. 24: de raptu virginum et viduarum (probably nuns
   and deaconesses).

   [185] C. Theod. viii. 16, 1. Comp. Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 26.

   [186] C. Theod. iii. 12: de incestis nuptiis.

   [187] C. Theod. iii. 16: de repudiis. Hence Jeromesays in view of this,
   Ep. 30 (al. 84) ad Oceanum: "Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi;
   aliud Papinianus [the most celebrated Roman jurist, died a.d.212],
   aliud Paulus noster praecipit."

   [188] Gibbon: "The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians
   .... The Christian princes were the first who specified the just causes
   of a private divorce; their institutions, from Constantineto Justinian,
   appear to fluctuate between the custom of the empire and the wishes of
   the church, and the author of the Novels too frequently reforms the
   jurisprudence of the Code and the Pandects .... The successor of
   Justinian yielded to the prayers of his unhappy subjects, and restored
   the liberty of divorce by mutual consent."

   [189] In a law of 326 it is called "facinus atrocissimum, scelus
   immane." Cod. Theod. l. ix. tit. 7, 1. 1 sq. And the definition of
   adultery, too, was now made broader. According to the old Roman law,
   the idea of adultery on the part of the man was limited to illicit
   intercourse with the married lady of a free citizen, and was thought
   punishable not so much for its own sake, as for its encroachment on the
   rights of another husband. Hence Jerome says, l.c., of the heathen:
   "Apud illos viris impudicitiae frena laxantur, et solo stupro et
   adulterio condemnato passim per lupanaria et ancillulas libido
   permittitur; quasi culpam dignitas faciat, non voluntas. Apud nos quod
   non licet feminis, aeque non licet viris, et eadem servitus pari
   conditione censetur." Yet the law, even under the emperors, still
   excepted carnal intercourse with a female slave from adultery. Thus the
   state here also stopped short of the church, and does to this day in
   countries where the institution of slavery exists.

   [190] Even a council at Toledo in 398 conceded so far on this point as
   to decree, can. 17: "Si quis habens uxorem fidelis concubinam habeat,
   non communicet. Ceterum is, qui non habet uxorem et pro uxore
   concubinam habeat, a communione non repellatur, tantum ut unius
   mulieris aut uxoris aut concubinae, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione
   contentus. Alias vero vivens abjiciatur donec desinat et per
   poenitentiam, revertatur."

   [191] Cod. Theod. iii. 7, 2; C. Justin. i. 9, 6. A proposal of marriage
   to a nun was even punished with death (ix. 25, 2).

   [192] a.d.318; Valentinian did the same in 374. Cod. Theod. ix. tit. 14
   and 15. Comp. the Pandects, lib. xlviii. tit. 8, l ix.

   [193] Cod. Theod. iii. 3, 1; Cod. Just. iv. 43, 1; viii. 52, 3. Gibbon
   says: "The Roman empire was stained with the blood of infants, till
   such murders were included, by Valentinian and his colleagues, in the
   letter and spirit of the Cornelian law. The lessons of jurisprudence
   and Christianity had been inefficient to eradicate this inhuman
   practice, till their gentle influence was fortified by the terrors of
   capital punishment."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 20. Social Reforms. The Institution of Slavery.

   4. The institution of slavery [194] remained throughout the empire, and
   is recognized in the laws of Justinian as altogether legitimate. [195]
   The Justinian code rests on the broad distinction of the human race
   into freemen and slaves. It declares, indeed, the natural equality of
   men, and so far rises above the theory of Aristotle, who regards
   certain races and classes of men as irrevocably doomed, by their
   physical and intellectual inferiority, to perpetual servitude; but it
   destroys the practical value of this concession by insisting as sternly
   as ever on the inferior legal and social condition of the slave, by
   degrading his marriage to the disgrace of concubinage, by refusing him
   all legal remedy in case of adultery, by depriving him of all power
   over his children, by making him an article of merchandise like
   irrational beasts of burden, whose transfer from vender to buyer was a
   legal transaction as valid and frequent as the sale of any other
   property. The purchase and sale of slaves for from ten to seventy
   pieces of gold, according to their age, strength, and training, was a
   daily occurrence. [196] The number was not limited; many a master
   owning even two or three thousand slaves.

   The barbarian codes do not essentially differ in this respect from the
   Roman. They, too, recognize slavery as an ordinary condition of mankind
   and the slave as a marketable commodity. All captives in war became
   slaves, and thousands of human lives were thus saved from
   indiscriminate massacre and extermination. The victory of Stilicho over
   Rhadagaisus threw 200,000 Goths and other Germans into the market, and
   lowered the price of a slave from twenty-five pieces of gold to one.
   The capture and sale of men was part of the piratical system along all
   the shores of Europe. Anglo-Saxons were freely sold in Rome at the time
   of Gregory the Great. The barbarian codes prohibited as severely as the
   Justinian code the debasing alliance of the freeman with the slave, but
   they seem to excel the latter in acknowledging the legality and
   religious sanctity of marriages between slaves; that of the Lombards on
   the authority of the Scripture sentence: "Whom God has joined together,
   let no man put asunder."

   The legal wall of partition, which separated the slaves from free
   citizens and excluded them from the universal rights of man, was indeed
   undermined, but by no means broken down, by the ancient church, who
   taught only the moral and religious equality of men. We find
   slaveholders even among the bishops and the higher clergy of the
   empire. Slaves belonged to the papal household at Rome, as we learn
   incidentally from the acts of a Roman synod held in 501 in consequence
   of the disputed election of Symmachus, where his opponents insisted
   upon his slaves being called in as witnesses, while his adherents
   protested against this extraordinary request, since the civil law
   excluded the slaves from the right of giving testimony before a court
   of justice. [197] Among the barbarians, likewise, we read of
   slaveholding churches, and of special provisions to protect their
   slaves. [198] Constantine issued rigid laws against intermarriage with
   slaves, all the offspring of which must be slaves; and against fugitive
   slaves (a.d. 319 and 326), who at that time in great multitudes
   plundered deserted provinces or joined with hostile barbarians against
   the empire. But on the other hand he facilitated manumission, permitted
   it even on Sunday, and gave the clergy the right to emancipate their
   slaves simply by their own word, without the witnesses and ceremonies
   required in other cases. [199] By Theodosius and Justinian the
   liberation of slaves was still further encouraged. The latter emperor
   abolished the penalty of condemnation to servitude, and by giving to
   freed persons the rank and rights of citizens, he removed the stain
   which had formerly attached to that class. [200] The spirit of his laws
   favored the gradual abolition of domestic slavery. In the Byzantine
   empire in general the differences of rank in society were more
   equalized, though not so much on Christian principle as in the interest
   of despotic monarchy. Despotism and extreme democracy meet in
   predilection for universal equality and uniformity. Neither can suffer
   any overshadowing greatness, save the majesty of the prince or the will
   of the people. The one system knows none but slaves; the other, none
   but masters.

   Nor was an entire abolition of slavery at that time at all demanded or
   desired even by the church. As in the previous period, she still
   thought it sufficient to insist on the kind Christian treatment of
   slaves, enjoining upon them obedience for the sake of the Lord,
   comforting them in their low condition with the thought of their higher
   moral freedom and equality, and by the religious education of the
   slaves making an inward preparation for the abolition of the
   institution. All hasty and violent measures met with decided
   disapproval. The council of Gangra threatens with the ban every one,
   who under pretext of religion seduces slaves into contempt of their
   masters; and the council of Chalcedon, in its fourth canon, on pain of
   excommunication forbids monasteries to harbor slaves without permission
   of the masters, lest Christianity be guilty of encouraging
   insubordination. The church fathers, so far as they enter this subject
   at all, seem to look upon slavery as at once a necessary evil and a
   divine instrument of discipline; tracing it to the curse on Ham and
   Canaan. [201] It is true, they favor emancipation in individual cases,
   as an act of Christian love on the part of the master, but not as a
   right on the part of the slave; and the well-known passage: "If then
   mayest be made free, use it rather," they understand not as a challenge
   to slaves to take the first opportunity to gain their freedom, but, on
   the contrary, as a challenge to remain in their servitude, since they
   are at all events inwardly free in Christ, and their outward condition
   is of no account. [202]

   Even St. Chrysostom, though of all the church fathers the nearest to
   the emancipation theory and the most attentive to the question of
   slavery in general, does not rise materially above this view. [203]
   According to him mankind were originally created perfectly free and
   equal, without the addition of a slave. But by the fall man lost the
   power of self-government, and fell into a threefold bondage: the
   bondage of woman under man, of slave under master, of subject under
   ruler. These three relations he considers divine punishments and divine
   means of discipline. Thus slavery, as a divine arrangement occasioned
   by the fall, is at once relatively justified and in principle
   condemned. Now since Christ has delivered us from evil and its
   consequences, slavery, according to Chrysostom, is in principle
   abolished in the church, yet only in the sense in which sin and death
   are abolished. Regenerate Christians are not slaves, but perfectly free
   men in Christ and brethren among themselves. The exclusive authority of
   the one and subjection of the other give place to mutual service in
   love. Consistently carried out, this view leads of course to
   emancipation. Chrysostom, it is true, does not carry it to that point,
   but he decidedly condemns all luxurious slaveholding, and thinks one or
   two servants enough for necessary help, while many patricians had
   hundreds and thousands. He advises the liberation of superfluous
   slaves, and the education of all, that in case they should be
   liberated, they may know how to take care of themselves. He is of
   opinion that the first Christian community at Jerusalem, in connection
   with community of goods, emancipated all their slaves; [204] and thus
   he gives his hearers a hint to follow that example. But of an appeal to
   slaves to break their bonds, this father shows of course no trace; he
   rather, after apostolic precedent, exhorts them to conscientious and
   cheerful obedience for Christ's sake, as earnestly as he inculcates
   upon masters humanity and love. The same is true of Ambrose, Augustine,
   and Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna ( 458).

   St. Augustine, the noblest representative of the Latin church, in his
   profound work on the "City of God," excludes slavery from the original
   idea of man and the final condition of society, and views it as an evil
   consequent upon sin, yet under divine direction and control. For God,
   he says, created man reasonable and lord only over the unreasonable,
   not over man. The burden of servitude was justly laid upon the sinner.
   Therefore the term servant is not found in the Scriptures till Noah
   used it as a curse upon his offending son. Thus it was guilt and not
   nature that deserved that name. The Latin word servus is supposed to be
   derived from servare [servire rather], or the preservation of the
   prisoners of war from death, which itself implies the desert of sin.
   For even in a just war there is sin on one side, and every victory
   humbles the conquered by divine judgment, either reforming their sins
   or punishing them. Daniel saw in the sins of the people the real cause
   of their captivity. Sin, therefore, is the mother of servitude and
   first cause of man's subjection to man; yet this does not come to pass
   except by the judgment of God, with whom there is no injustice, and who
   knows how to adjust the various punishments to the merits of the
   offenders .... The apostle exhorts the servants to obey their masters
   and to serve them ex animo, with good will; to the end that, if they
   cannot be made free from their masters, they may make their servitude a
   freedom to themselves by serving them not in deceitful fear, but in
   faithful love, until iniquity be overpassed, and all man's principality
   and power be annulled, and God be all in all. [205]

   As might be expected, after the conversion of the emperors, and of rich
   and noble families, who owned most slaves, cases of emancipation became
   more frequent. [206] The biographer of St. Samson Xenodochos, a
   contemporary of Justinian, says of him: "His troop of slaves he would
   not keep, still less exercise over his fellow servants a lordly
   authority; he preferred magnanimously to let them go free, and gave
   them enough for the necessaries of life." [207] Salvianus, a Gallic
   presbyter of the fifth century, says that slaves were emancipated
   daily. [208] On the other hand, very much was done in the church to
   prevent the increase of slavery; especially in the way of redeeming
   prisoners, to which sometimes the gold and silver vessels of churches
   were applied. But we have no reliable statistics for comparing even
   approximately the proportion of the slaves to the free population at
   the close of the sixth century with the proportion in the former
   period.

   We infer then, that the Christianity of the Nicene and post-Nicene age,
   though naturally conservative and decidedly opposed to social
   revolution and violent measures of reform, yet in its inmost instincts
   and ultimate tendencies favored the universal freedom of man, and, by
   elevating the slave to spiritual equality with the master, and
   uniformly treating him as capable of the same virtues, blessings, and
   rewards, has placed the hateful institution of human bondage in the way
   of gradual amelioration and final extinction. This result, however, was
   not reached in Europe till many centuries after our period, nor by the
   influence of the church alone, but with the help of various economical
   and political causes, the unprofitableness of slavery, especially in
   more northern latitudes, the new relations introduced by the barbarian
   conquests, the habits of the Teutonic tribes settled within the Roman
   empire, the attachment of the rural slave to the soil, and the change
   of the slave into the serf, who was as immovable as the soil, and thus,
   in some degree independent on the caprice and despotism of his master.

   5. The poor and unfortunate in general, above all the widows and
   orphans, prisoners and sick, who were so terribly neglected in heathen
   times, now drew the attention of the imperial legislators. Constantine
   in 315 prohibited the branding of criminals on the forehead, "that the
   human countenance," as he said, "formed after the image of heavenly
   beauty, should not be defaced." [209] He provided against the inhuman
   maltreatment of prisoners before their trial. [210] To deprive poor
   parents of all pretext for selling or exposing their children, he had
   them furnished with food and clothing, partly at his own expense and
   partly at that of the state. [211] He likewise endeavored, particularly
   by a law of the year 331, to protect the poor against the venality and
   extortion of judges, advocates, and tax collectors, who drained the
   people by their exactions. [212] In the year 334 he ordered that
   widows, orphans, the sick, and the poor should not be compelled to
   appear before a tribunal outside their own province. Valentinian, in
   365, exempted widows and orphans from the ignoble poll tax. [213] In
   364 he intrusted the bishops with the supervision of the poor. Honorius
   did the same in 409. Justinian, in 529, as we have before remarked,
   gave the bishops the oversight of the state prisons, which they were to
   visit on Wednesdays and Fridays, to bring home to the unfortunates the
   earnestness and comfort of religion. The same emperor issued laws
   against usury and inhuman severity in creditors, and secured benevolent
   and religious foundations by strict laws against alienation of their
   revenues from the original design of the founders. Several emperors and
   empresses took the church institutions for the poor and sick, for
   strangers, widows, and orphans, under their special patronage, exempted
   them from the usual taxes, and enriched or enlarged them from their
   private funds. [214] Yet in those days, as still in ours, the private
   beneficence of Christian love took the lead, and the state followed at
   a distance, rather with ratification and patronage than with
   independent and original activity. [215]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [194] Comp. vol. i. § 89, and the author's "Hist. of the Apost.
   Church," § 113.

   [195] Instit. lib. i. tit. 5-8; Digest. l. i. tit. 5 and 6, etc.

   [196] The legal price, which, however, was generally under the market
   price, was thus established under Justinian (Cod. l. vi. tit. xliii. l.
   3): Ten pieces of gold for an ordinary male or female slave under ten
   years; twenty, for slaves over ten; thirty, for such as understood a
   trade; fifty, for notaries and scribes; sixty, for physicians, and
   midwives. Eunuchs ranged to seventy pieces.

   [197] Comp. Hefele: "Conciliengeschichte," ii. p. 620; and Milman:
   "Latin Christianity," vol. i. p. 419 (Am. ed.), who infers from this
   fact, "that slaves formed the household of the Pope, and that, by law,
   they were yet liable to torture. This seems clear from the words of
   Ennodius."

   [198] Comp. Milman, l.c. i. 531.

   [199] In two laws of 316 and 321; Corp. Jur. l. i. tit. 13, l. 1 and 2.

   [200] Cod. Just. vii. 5, 6; Nov. 22, c. 8 (a.d.536), and Nov. 78,
   praef. 1, 2 (a.d.539).

   [201] Gen. ix. 25: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be
   unto his brethren." But Christ appeared to remove every curse of sin,
   and every kind of slavery. The service of God is perfect freedom.

   [202] 1 Cor. vii. 21. The Greek fathers supply, with mallon chresai,
   the word douleia(Chrysostom: mallon douleue); whereas nearly all modem
   interpreters (except De Wette, Meyer, Ewald, and Alford) follow Calvin
   and Grotius in supplying eleutheria. Chrysostom, however, mentions this
   construction, and in another place (Serm. iv. in Genes. tom. v. p. 666)
   seems himself to favor it. The verb use connects itself more naturally
   with freedom, which is a boon and a blessing, than with bondage, which
   is a state of privation. Milman, however, goes too far when he asserts
   (Lat. Christianity, vol. i. 492): "The abrogation of slavery was not
   contemplated even as a remote possibility. A general enfranchisement
   seems never to have dawned on the wisest and best of the Christian
   writers, notwithstanding the greater facility for manumission, and the
   sanctity, as it were, assigned to the act by Constantine, by placing it
   under the special superintendence of the clergy." Compare against this
   statement the views of Chrysostom and Augustine, in the text.

   [203] The views of Chrysostom on slavery are presented in his Homilies
   on Genesis and on the Epistles of Paul, and are collected by Möhler in
   his beautiful article on the Abolition of Slavery (Vermischte
   Schriften, ii. p. 89 sqq.). Möhler says that since the times of the
   apostle Paul no one has done a more valuable service to slaves then St.
   Chrysostom. But he overrates his merit.

   [204] Homil. xi. in Acta Apost. (Opera omn., tom. ix. p. 93): Oude gar
   tote touto hen, all eleutherous isos epetrepon ginesthai. The monk
   Nilus, a pupil of Chrysostom, went so far as to declare slaveholding
   inconsistent with true love to Christ, Ep. lib. i. ep. 142 (quoted by
   Neander in his chapter on monasticism): Ou gar hoimai oiketen echein
   ton philochriston, eidota ten charin ten pantas eleutherosasan.

   [205] De Civit. Dei, lib. xix. cap. 15.

   [206] For earlier cases, at the close of the previous period, see vol.
   i. § 89, at the end.

   [207] Acta Sanct. Boll. Jun. tom. v. p. 267. According to Palladius,
   Hist. c. 119, St. Melania had, in concert with her husband Pinius,
   manumitted as many as eight thousand slaves. Yet it is only the ancient
   Latin translation that has this almost incredible number.

   [208] Ad Eccles. cath. l. iii. § 7 (Galland. tom. x. p. 71): "In usu
   quidem quotidiano est, ut servi, etsi non optimae, certe non infirmae
   servitudinis, Romana a dominis libertate donentur; in qua scilicet et
   proprietatem peculii capiunt et jus testamentarium consequuntur: ita ut
   et viventes, cui volunt, res suas tradant, et morientes donatione
   transcribAnt. Nec solum hoc, sed et illa, quae in servitute positi
   conquisierant, ex dominorum domo tollere non vetantur." From this
   passage it appears that many masters, with a view to set their slaves
   free, allowed them to earn something; which was not allowed by the
   Roman law.

   [209] Cod. Theod. ix. 40, 1 and 2.

   [210] C. Theod. ix. tit. 3, de custodia reorum. Comp. later similar
   laws of the year 409 in l. 7, and of 529 in the Cod. Justin. i. 4, 22.

   [211] Comp. the two laws De alimentis quae inopes parentes de publico
   petere debent, in the Cod. Theod. xi. 27, 1 and 2.

   [212] Cod. Theod. I. tit. 7, l. 1: Cessent jam nunc rapaces officialium
   manus, cessent inquam! nam si moniti non cessaverint, gladiis
   praecidentur.

   [213] The capitatio plebeja. Cod. Theod. xiii. 10, 1 and 4. Other laws
   in behalf of widows, Cod. Just. iii. 14; ix. 24.

   [214] Cod. Theod. xi. 16, xiii. 1; Cod. Just. i. 3; Nov. 131. Comp.
   here in general Chastel: The Charity of the Primitive Churches (transl.
   by Mathe), pp. 281-293.

   [215] Comp. Chastel, l.c., p. 293: "It appears, then, as to charitable
   institutions, the part of the Christian emperors was much less to found
   themselves, than to recognize, to regulate, to guarantee, sometimes
   also to enrich with their private gifts, that which the church had
   founded. Everywhere the initiative had been taken by religious charity.
   Public charity only followed in the distance, and when it attempted to
   go ahead originally and alone, it soon found that it had strayed aside,
   and was constrained to withdraw."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 21. Abolition of Gladiatorial Shows.

   6. And finally, one of the greatest and most beautiful victories of
   Christian humanity over heathen barbarism and cruelty was the abolition
   of gladiatorial contests, against which the apologists in the second
   century had already raised the most earnest protest. [216]

   These bloody shows, in which human beings, mostly criminals, prisoners
   of war, and barbarians, by hundreds and thousands killed one another or
   were killed in fight with wild beasts for the amusement of the
   spectators, were still in full favor at the beginning of the period
   before us. The pagan civilization here proves itself impotent. In its
   eyes the life of a barbarian is of no other use than to serve the cruel
   amusement of the Roman people, who wish quietly to behold with their
   own eyes and enjoy at home the martial bloodshedding of their
   frontiers. Even the humane Symmachus gave an exhibition of this kind
   during his consulate (391), and was enraged that twenty-nine Saxon
   prisoners of war escaped this public shame by suicide. [217] While the
   Vestal virgins existed, it was their special prerogative to cheer on
   the combatants in the amphitheatre to the bloody work, and to give the
   signal for the deadly stroke. [218]

   The contagion of the thirst for blood, which these spectacles
   generated, is presented to us in a striking example by Augustine in his
   Confessions. [219] His friend Alypius, afterward bishop of Tagaste, was
   induced by some friends in 385 to visit the amphitheatre at Rome, and
   went resolved to lock himself up against all impressions. "When they
   reached the spot," says Augustine, "and took their places on the hired
   seats, everything already foamed with bloodthirsty delight. But
   Alypius, with closed eyes, forbade his soul to yield to this sin. O had
   he but stopped also his ears! For when, on the fall of a gladiator in
   the contest, the wild shout of the whole multitude fell upon him,
   overcome by curiosity he opened his eyes, though prepared to despise
   and resist the sight. But he was smitten with a more grievous wound in
   the soul than the combatant in the body, and fell more lamentably ....
   For when he saw the blood, he imbibed at once the love of it, turned
   not away, fastened his eyes upon it, caught the spirit of rage and
   vengeance before he knew it, and, fascinated with the murderous game,
   became drunk with bloodthirsty joy .... He looked, shouted applause,
   burned, and carried with him thence the frenzy, by which he was drawn
   to go back, not only with those who had taken him there, but before
   them, and taking others with him."

   Christianity finally succeeded in closing the amphitheatre.
   Constantine, who in his earlier reign himself did homage to the popular
   custom in this matter, and exposed a great multitude of conquered
   barbarians to death in the amphitheatre at Treves, for which he was
   highly commended by a heathen orator, [220] issued in 325, the year of
   the great council of the church at Nice, the first prohibition of the
   bloody spectacles, "because they cannot be pleasing in a time of public
   peace." [221] But this edict, which is directed to the prefects of
   Phoenicia, had no permanent effect even in the East, except at
   Constantinople, which was never stained with the blood of gladiators.
   In Syria and especially in the West, above all in Rome, the deeply
   rooted institution continued into the fifth century. Honorius
   (395-423), who at first considered it indestructible, abolished the
   gladiatorial shows about 404, and did so at the instance of the heroic
   self-denial of an eastern monk by the name of Telemachus, who journeyed
   to Rome expressly to protest against this inhuman barbarity, threw
   himself into the arena, separated the combatants, and then was torn to
   pieces by the populace, a martyr to humanity. [222] Yet this put a stop
   only to the bloody combats of men. Unbloody spectacles of every kind,
   even on the high festivals of the church and amidst the invasions of
   the barbarians, as we see by the grievous complaints of a Chrysostom,
   an Augustine, and a Salvian, were as largely and as passionately
   attended as ever; and even fights with wild animals, in which human
   life was generally more or less sacrificed, continued, [223] and, to
   the scandal of the Christian name, are tolerated in Spain and South
   America to this day.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [216] Comp. vol. i. § 88.

   [217] Symm. l. ii. Ep. 46. Comp. vii. 4.

   [218] Prudentius Adv. Symmach. ii. 1095: Virgo--consurgit ad ictus, Et
   quotiens victor ferrum jugulo inserit, illa Delicias ait esse suas,
   pectusque jacentis Virgo modesta jubet, converso pollice, rumpi; Ni
   lateat pars ulla animae vitalibus imis, Altius impresso dum palpitat
   ense secutor.

   [219] Lib. vi. c. 8.

   [220] Eumenii Panegyr. c. 12.

   [221] Cod. Theod. xv. tit. 12, l. 1, de gladiatoribus: "Cruenta
   spectacula in otio civili et domestica quiete non placent; quapropter
   omnino gladiatores esse prohibemus." Comp. Euseb. Vita Const. iv. 25.

   [222] So relates Theodoret: Hist. eccl. l. v. c. 26. For there is no
   law of Honorius extant on the subject. Yet after this time there is no
   mention of a gladiatorial contest between man and man.

   [223] In a law of Leo, of the year 469 (in the Cod. Justin. iii. tit.
   12, l. 11), besides the scena theatralis and the circense theatrum,
   also ferarum lacrymosa spectacula are mentioned as existing. Salvian
   likewise, in the fifth century (De gubern. Dei, l. vi. p. 51), censures
   the delight of his contemporaries in such bloody combats of man with
   wild beasts. So late as the end of the seventh century a prohibition
   from the Trullan council was called for in the East, In the West,
   Theodoric appears to have exchanged the beast fights for military
   displays, whence proceeded the later tournaments. Yet these shows have
   never become entirely extinct, but remain in the bull fights of
   Southern Europe, especially in Spain.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 22. Evils of the Union of Church and State. Secularization of the
   Church.

   We turn now to the dark side of the union of the church with the state;
   to the consideration of the disadvantages which grew out of their
   altered relation after the time of Constantine, and which continue to
   show themselves in the condition of the church in Europe to our own
   time.

   These evil results may be summed up under the general designation of
   the secularization of the church. By taking in the whole population of
   the Roman empire the church became, indeed, a church of the masses, a
   church of the people, but at the same time more or less a church of the
   world. Christianity became a matter of fashion. The number of
   hypocrites and formal professors rapidly increased; [224] strict
   discipline, zeal, self-sacrifice, and brotherly love proportionally
   ebbed away; and many heathen customs and usages, under altered names,
   crept into the worship of God and the life of the Christian people. The
   Roman state had grown up under the influence of idolatry, and was not
   to be magically transformed at a stroke. With the secularizing process,
   therefore, a paganizing tendency went hand in hand.

   Yet the pure spirit of Christianity could by no means be polluted by
   this. On the contrary it retained even in the darkest days its faithful
   and steadfast confessors, conquered new provinces from time to time,
   constantly reacted, both within the established church and outside of
   it, in the form of monasticism, against the secular and the pagan
   influences, and, in its very struggle with the prevailing corruption,
   produced such church fathers as Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Augustine,
   such exemplary Christian mothers as Nonna, Anthusa, and Monica, and
   such extraordinary saints of the desert as Anthony, Pachomius, and
   Benedict. New enemies and dangers called forth new duties and virtues,
   which could now unfold themselves on a larger stage, and therefore also
   on a grander scale. Besides, it must not be forgotten, that the
   tendency to secularization is by no means to be ascribed only to
   Constantine and the influence of the state, but to the deeper source of
   the corrupt heart of man, and did reveal itself, in fact, though within
   a much narrower compass, long before, under the heathen emperors,
   especially in the intervals of repose, when the earnestness and zeal of
   Christian life slumbered and gave scope to a worldly spirit.

   The difference between the age after Constantine and the age before
   consists, therefore, not at all in the cessation of true Christianity
   and the entrance of false, but in the preponderance of the one over the
   other. The field of the church was now much larger, but with much good
   soil it included far more that was stony, barren, and overgrown with
   weeds. The line between church and world, between regenerate and
   unregenerate, between those who were Christians in name and those who
   were Christians in heart, was more or less obliterated, and in place of
   the former hostility between the two parties there came a fusion of
   them in the same outward communion of baptism and confession. This
   brought the conflict between light and darkness, truth and falsehood,
   Christ and antichrist, into the bosom of Christendom itself.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [224] Thus Augustine, for example, Tract. in JoAnn. xxv. c. 10, laments
   that the church filled itself daily with those who sought Jesus not for
   Jesus, but for earthly profit. Comp. the similar complaint of Eusebius,
   Vita Const. l. iv. c. 54.
     __________________________________________________________________

   §23. Worldliness and Extravagance.

   The secularization of the church appeared most strikingly in the
   prevalence of mammon worship and luxury compared with the poverty and
   simplicity of the primitive Christians. The aristocracy of the later
   empire had a morbid passion for outward display and the sensual
   enjoyments of wealth, without the taste, the politeness, or the culture
   of true civilization. The gentlemen measured their fortune by the
   number of their marble palaces, baths, slaves, and gilded carriages;
   the ladies indulged in raiment of silk and gold ornamented with secular
   or religious figures, and in heavy golden necklaces, bracelets, and
   rings, and went to church in the same flaunting dress as to the
   theatre. [225] Chrysostom addresses a patrician of Antioch: "You count
   so and so many acres of land, ten or twenty palaces, as many baths, a
   thousand or two thousand slaves, carriages plated with silver and
   gold." [226] Gregory Nazianzen, who presided for a time in the second
   ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381, gives us the following
   picture, evidently rhetorically colored, yet drawn from life, of the
   luxury of the degenerate civilization of that period: "We repose in
   splendor on high and sumptuous cushions, upon the most exquisite
   covers, which one is almost afraid to touch, and are vexed if we but
   hear the voice of a moaning pauper; our chamber must breathe the odor
   of flowers, even rare flowers; our table must flow with the most
   fragrant and costly ointment, so that we become perfectly effeminate.
   Slaves must stand ready, richly adorned and in order, with waving,
   maidenlike hair, and faces shorn perfectly smooth, more adorned
   throughout than is good for lascivious eyes; some, to hold cups both
   delicately and firmly with the tips of their fingers, others, to fan
   fresh air upon the head. Our table must bend under the load of dishes,
   while all the kingdoms of nature, air, water and earth, furnish copious
   contributions, and there must be almost no room for the artificial
   products of cook and baker .... The poor man is content with water; but
   we fill our goblets with wine to drunkenness, nay, immeasurably beyond
   it. We refuse one wine, another we pronounce excellent when well
   flavored, over a third we institute philosophical discussions; nay, we
   count it a pity, if he does not, as a king, add to the domestic wine a
   foreign also." [227] Still more unfavorable are the pictures which, a
   half century later, the Gallic presbyter, Salvianus, draws of the
   general moral condition of the Christians in the Roman empire. [228]

   It is true, these earnest protests against degeneracy themselves, as
   well as the honor in which monasticism and ascetic contempt of the
   world were universally held, attest the existence of a better spirit.
   But the uncontrollable progress of avarice, prodigality,
   voluptuousness, theatre going, intemperance, lewdness, in short, of all
   the heathen vices, which Christianity had come to eradicate, still
   carried the Roman empire and people with rapid strides toward
   dissolution, and gave it at last into the hands of the rude, but simple
   and morally vigorous barbarians. When the Christians were awakened by
   the crashings of the falling empire, and anxiously asked why God
   permitted it, Salvian, the Jeremiah of his time, answered: "Think of
   your vileness and your crimes, and see whether you are worthy of the
   divine protection." [229] Nothing but the divine judgment of
   destruction upon this nominally Christian, but essentially heathen
   world, could open the way for the moral regeneration of society. There
   must be new, fresh nations, if the Christian civilization prepared in
   the old Roman empire was to take firm root and bear ripe fruit.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [225] Ammianus Marcellinus gives the most graphic account of the
   extravagant and tasteless luxury of the Roman aristocracy in the fourth
   century; which Gibbon has admirably translated and explained in his
   31st chapter.

   [226] Homil. in Matt. 63, § 4 (tom. vii. p. 533), comp. Hom. in 1 Cor.
   21, § 6, and many other places in his sermons. Comp. Neander's
   Chrysostomus, i. p. 10 sqq. and Is. Taylor's Anc. Christianity, vol.
   ii., supplement, p. xxx. sqq.

   [227] Orat. xiv. Comp. Ullmann's monograph on Gregory, p. 6.

   [228] Adv. avarit. and De gubern. Dei, passim. Comp. § 12, at the
   close.

   [229] De gubern. Dei, l. iv. c. 12, p. 82.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 24. Byzantine Court Christianity.

   The unnatural confusion of Christianity with the world culminated in
   the imperial court of Constantinople, which, it is true, never violated
   moral decency so grossly as the court of a Nero or a Domitian, but in
   vain pomp and prodigality far outdid the courts of the better heathen
   emperors, and degenerated into complete oriental despotism. The
   household of Constantius, according to the description of Libanius,
   [230] embraced no less than a thousand barbers, a thousand cup bearers,
   a thousand cooks, and so many eunuchs, that they could be compared only
   to the insects of a summer day. This boundless luxury was for a time
   suppressed by the pagan Julian, who delighted in stoical and cynical
   severity, and was fond of displaying it; but under his Christian
   successors the same prodigality returned; especially under Theodosius
   and his sons. These emperors, who prohibited idolatry upon pain of
   death, called their laws, edicts, and palaces "divine," bore themselves
   as gods upon earth, and, on the rare occasions when they showed
   themselves to the people, unfurled an incredible magnificence and empty
   splendor.

   "When Arcadius," to borrow a graphic description from a modern
   historian, "condescended to reveal to the public the majesty of the
   sovereign, he was preceded by a vast multitude of attendants, dukes,
   tribunes, civil and military officers, their horses glittering with
   golden ornaments, with shields of gold set with precious stones, and
   golden lances. They proclaimed the coming of the emperor, and commanded
   the ignoble crowd to clear the streets before him. The emperor stood or
   reclined on a gorgeous chariot, surrounded by his immediate attendants,
   distinguished by shields with golden bosses set round with golden eyes,
   and drawn by white mules with gilded trappings; the chariot was set
   with precious stones, and golden fans vibrated with the movement, and
   cooled the air. The multitude contemplated at a distance the snow-white
   cushions, the silken carpets, with dragons inwoven upon them in rich
   colors. Those who were fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of the
   emperor, beheld his ears loaded with golden rings, his arms with golden
   chains, his diadem set with gems of all hues, his purple robes, which,
   with the diadem, were reserved for the emperor, in all their sutures
   embroidered with precious stones. The wondering people, on their return
   to their homes, could talk of nothing but the splendor of the
   spectacle: the robes, the mules, the carpets, the size and splendor of
   the jewels. On his return to the palace, the emperor walked on gold;
   ships were employed with the express purpose of bringing gold dust from
   remote provinces, which was strewn by the officious care of a host of
   attendants, so that the emperor rarely set his foot on the bare
   pavement." [231]

   The Christianity of the Byzantine court lived in the atmosphere of
   intrigue, dissimulation, and flattery. Even the court divines and
   bishops could hardly escape the contamination, though their high
   office, with its sacred functions, was certainly a protecting wall
   around them. One of these bishops congratulated Constantine, at the
   celebration of the third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), that
   he had been appointed by God ruler over all in this world, and would
   reign with the Son of God in the other! This blasphemous flattery was
   too much even for the vain emperor, and he exhorted the bishop rather
   to pray God that he might be worthy to be one of his servants in this
   world and the next. [232] Even the church historian and bishop
   Eusebius, who elsewhere knew well enough how to value the higher
   blessings, and lamented the indescribable hypocrisy of the sham
   Christianity around the emperor, [233] suffered himself to be so far
   blinded by the splendor of the imperial favor, as to see in a banquet,
   which Constantine gave in his palace to the bishops at the close of the
   council of Nice, in honor of his twenty years' reign (the vicennalia),
   an emblem of the glorious reign of Christ upon the earth! [234]

   And these were bishops, of whom many still bore in their body the marks
   of the Diocletian persecution. So rapidly had changed the spirit of the
   age. While, on the other hand, the well-known firmness of Ambrose with
   Theodosius, and the life of Chrysostom, afford delightful proof that
   there were not wanting, even in this age, bishops of Christian
   earnestness and courage to rebuke the sins of crowned heads.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [230] Lib., Epitaph. Julian.

   [231] Milman: Hist. of Ancient Christianity, p. 440 (Am. ed.). Comp.
   the sketch of the court of Arcadius, which Montfaucon, in a treatise in
   the last volume of his Opera Chrys., and Müller: De genio, moribus, et
   luxu aevi Theodosiani, Copenh. 1798, have drawn, chiefly from the works
   of Chrysostom.

   [232] Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 48.

   [233] V. Const. iv. 54.

   [234] V. Const. iii. 15, where Eusebius, at the close of this
   imperio-episcopal banquet, "which transcended all description," says:
   Christou basileias edoxen an tis phantasiousthai eikona, onar t einai
   all ouch huper to ginomenon.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 25. Intrusion of Politics into Religion.

   With the union of the church and the state begins the long and tedious
   history of their collisions and their mutual struggles for the mastery:
   the state seeking to subject the church to the empire, the church to
   subject the state to the hierarchy, and both very often transgressing
   the limits prescribed to their power in that word of the Lord: "Render
   unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that
   are God's." From the time of Constantine, therefore, the history of the
   church and that of the world in Europe are so closely interwoven, that
   neither can be understood without the other. On the one hand, the
   political rulers, as the highest members and the patrons of the church,
   claimed a right to a share in her government, and interfered in various
   ways in her external and internal affairs, either to her profit or to
   her prejudice. On the other hand, the bishops and patriarchs, as the
   highest dignitaries and officers of the state religion, became involved
   in all sorts of secular matters and in the intrigues of the Byzantine
   court. This mutual intermixture, on the whole, was of more injury than
   benefit to the church and to religion, and fettered her free and
   natural development.

   Of a separation of religion and politics, of the spiritual power from
   the temporal, heathen antiquity knew nothing, because it regarded
   religion itself only from a natural point of view, and subjected it to
   the purposes of the all-ruling state, the highest known form of human
   society. The Egyptian kings, as Plutarch tells us, were at the same
   time priests, or were received into the priesthood at their election.
   In Greece the civil magistrate had supervision of the priests and
   sanctuaries. [235] In Rome, after the time of Numa, this supervision
   was intrusted to a senator, and afterward united with the imperial
   office. All the pagan emperors, from Augustus [236] to Julian the
   Apostate, were at the same time supreme pontiffs (Pontifices Maximi),
   the heads of the state religion, emperor-popes. As such they could not
   only perform all priestly functions, even to offering sacrifices, when
   superstition or policy prompted them to do so, but they also stood at
   the head of the highest sacerdotal college (of fifteen or more
   Pontifices), which in turn regulated and superintended the three lower
   classes of priests (the Epulones, Quindecemviri, and Augures), the
   temples and altars, the sacrifices, divinations, feasts, and
   ceremonies, the exposition of the Sibylline books, the calendar, in
   short, all public worship, and in part even the affairs of marriage and
   inheritance.

   Now it may easily be supposed that the Christian emperors, who, down to
   Gratian (about 380), even retained the name and the insignia of the
   Pontifex Maximus, claimed the same oversight of the Christian religion
   established in the empire, which their predecessors had had of the
   heathen; only with this material difference, that they found here a
   stricter separation between the religious element and the political,
   the ecclesiastical and the secular, and were obliged to bind themselves
   to the already existing doctrines, usages, and traditions of the church
   which claimed divine institution and authority.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [235] This overseer was called basileus of the hiereis and hiera.

   [236] Augustus took the dignity of Pontifex Maximus after the death of
   Lepidus, a.u.742, and thenceforth that office remained inherent in the
   imperial, though it was usually conferred by a decree of the senate.
   Formerly the pontifex maximus was elected by the people for life, could
   take no civil office, must never leave Italy, touch a corpse, or
   contract a second marriage; and he dwelt in the old king's house, the
   regia. Augustus himself exercised the office despotically enough,
   though with great prudence. He nominated and increased at pleasure the
   members of the sacerdotal college, chose the vestal virgins, determined
   the authority of the vaticinia, purged the Sibylline books of
   apocryphal interpolations, continued the reform of the calendar begun
   by Caesar, and changed the month Sextius into Augustus in his own
   honor, as Quintius, the birth-month of Julius Caesar, had before been
   rebaptized Julius. Comp. Charles Merivale: Hist. of the Romans under
   the Empire, vol. iii. (Lond. 1851), p, 478 sqq. (This work, which stops
   where Gibbon begins, has been republished in 7 vols. in New York,
   1863.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 26. The Emperor-Papacy and the Hierarchy.

   And this, in point of fact, took place first under Constantine, and
   developed under his successors, particularly under Justinian, into the
   system of the Byzantine imperial papacy, [237] or of the supremacy of
   the state over the church.

   Constantine once said to the bishops at a banquet, that he also, as a
   Christian emperor, was a divinely appointed bishop, a bishop over the
   external affairs of the church, while the internal affairs belonged to
   the bishops proper. [238] In this pregnant word he expressed the new
   posture of the civil sovereign toward the church in a characteristic
   though indefinite and equivocal way. He made there a distinction
   between two divinely authorized episcopates; one secular or imperial,
   corresponding with the old office of Pontifex Maximus, and extending
   over the whole Roman empire, therefore ecumenical or universal; the
   other spiritual or sacerdotal, divided among the different diocesan
   bishops, and appearing properly in its unity and totality only in a
   general council.

   Accordingly, though not yet even baptized, he acted as the patron and
   universal temporal bishop of the church; [239] summoned the first
   ecumenical council for the settlement of the controversy respecting the
   divinity of Christ; instituted and deposed bishops; and occasionally
   even delivered sermons to the people; but on the other hand, with
   genuine tact (though this was in his earlier period, a.d. 314), kept
   aloof from the Donatist controversy, and referred to the episcopal
   tribunal as the highest and last resort in purely spiritual matters. In
   the exercise of his imperial right of supervision he did not follow any
   clear insight and definite theory so much as an instinctive impulse of
   control, a sense of politico-religious duty, and the requirements of
   the time. His word only raised, did not solve, the question of the
   relation between the imperial and the sacerdotal episcopacy and the
   extent of their respective jurisdictions in a Christian state.

   This question became thenceforth the problem and the strife of history
   both sacred and secular, ran through the whole mediaeval conflict
   between emperor and pope, between imperial and hierarchical episcopacy,
   and recurs in modified form in every Protestant established church.

   In general, from this time forth the prevailing view was, that God has
   divided all power between the priesthood and the kingdom (sacerdotium
   et imperium), giving internal or spiritual affairs, especially doctrine
   and worship, to the former, and external or temporal affairs, such as
   government and discipline, to the latter. [240] But internal and
   external here vitally interpenetrate and depend on each other, as soul
   and body, and frequent reciprocal encroachments and collisions are
   inevitable upon state-church ground. This becomes manifest in the
   period before us in many ways, especially in the East, where the
   Byzantine despotism had freer play, than in the distant West.

   The emperors after Constantine (as the popes after them) summoned the
   general councils, bore the necessary expenses, presided in the councils
   through commissions, gave to the decisions in doctrine and discipline
   the force of law for the whole Roman empire, and maintained them by
   their authority. The emperors nominated or confirmed the most
   influential metropolitans and patriarchs. They took part in all
   theological disputes, and thereby inflamed the passion of parties. They
   protected orthodoxy and punished heresy with the arm of power. Often,
   however, they took the heretical side, and banished orthodox bishops
   from their sees. Thus Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and
   Monophysitism successively found favor and protection at court. Even
   empresses meddled in the internal and external concerns of the church.
   Justina endeavored with all her might to introduce Arianism in Milan,
   but met a successful opponent in bishop Ambrose. Eudoxia procured the
   deposition and banishment of the noble Chrysostom. Theodora, raised
   from the stage to the throne, ruled the emperor Justinian, and sought
   by every kind of intrigue to promote the victory of the Monophysite
   heresy. It is true, the doctrinal decisions proceeded properly from the
   councils, and could not have maintained themselves long without that
   sanction. But Basiliscus, Zeno, Justinian I., Heraclius, Constans II.,
   and other emperors issued many purely ecclesiastical edicts and
   rescripts without consulting the councils, or through the councils by
   their own influence upon them. Justinian opens his celebrated codex
   with the imperial creed on the trinity and the imperial anathema
   against Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris, on the basis certainly of the
   apostolic church and of the four ecumenical councils, but in the
   consciousness of absolute legislative and executive authority even over
   the faith and conscience of all his subjects.

   The voice of the catholic church in this period conceded to the
   Christian emperors in general, with the duty of protecting and
   supporting the church, the right of supervision over its external
   affairs, but claimed for the clergy, particularly for the bishops, the
   right to govern her within, to fix her doctrine, to direct her worship.
   The new state of things was regarded as a restoration of the Mosaic and
   Davidic theocracy on Christian soil, and judged accordingly. But in
   respect to the extent and application of the emperor's power in the
   church, opinion was generally determined, consciously or unconsciously,
   by some special religious interest. Hence we find that catholics and
   heretics, Athanasians and Arians, justified or condemned the
   interference of the emperor in the development of doctrine, the
   appointment and deposition of bishops, and the patronage and
   persecution of parties, according as they themselves were affected by
   them. The same Donatists who first appealed to the imperial protection,
   when the decision went against them denounced all intermeddling of the
   state with the church. There were bishops who justified even the most
   arbitrary excesses of the Byzantine despotism in religion by reference
   to Melchizedek and the pious kings of Israel, and yielded them selves
   willing tools of the court. But there were never wanting also fearless
   defenders of the rights of the church against the civil power. Maximus
   the Confessor declared before his judges in Constantinople, that
   Melchizedek was a type of Christ alone, not of the emperor.

   In general the hierarchy formed a powerful and wholesome check on the
   imperial papacy, and preserved the freedom and independence of the
   church toward the temporal power. That age had only the alternative of
   imperial or episcopal despotism; and of these the latter was the less
   hurtful and the more profitable, because it represented the higher
   intellectual and moral interests. Without the hierarchy, the church in
   the Roman empire and among the barbarians would have been the football
   of civil and military despots. It was, therefore, of the utmost
   importance, that the church, at the time of her marriage with the
   state, had already grown so large and strong as to withstand all
   material alteration by imperial caprice, and all effort to degrade her
   into a tool. The Apostolic Constitutions place the bishops even above
   all kings and magistrates. [241] Chrysostom says that the first
   ministers of the state enjoyed no such honor as the ministers of the
   church. And in general the ministers of the church deserved their
   honor. Though there were prelates enough who abused their power to
   sordid ends, still there were men like Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose,
   Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, the purest and most venerable characters,
   which meet us in the fourth and fifth centuries, far surpassing the
   contemporary emperors. It was the universal opinion that the doctrines
   and institutions of the church, resting on divine revelation, are above
   all human power and will. The people looked, in blind faith and
   superstition, to the clergy as their guides in all matters of
   conscience, and even the emperors had to pay the bishops, as the
   fathers of the churches, the greatest reverence, kiss their hands, beg
   their blessing, and submit to their admonition and discipline. In most
   cases the emperors were mere tools of parties in the church. Arbitrary
   laws which were imposed upon the church from without rarely survived
   their makers, and were condemned by history. For there is a divine
   authority above all thrones, and kings, and bishops, and a power of
   truth above all the machinations of falsehood and intrigue.

   The Western church, as a whole, preserved her independence far more
   than the Eastern; partly through the great firmness of the Roman
   character, partly through the favor of political circumstances, and of
   remoteness from the influence and the intrigues of the Byzantine court.
   Here the hierarchical principle developed itself from the time of Leo
   the Great even to the absolute papacy, which, however, after it
   fulfilled its mission for the world among the barbarian nations of the
   middle ages, degenerated into an insufferable tyranny over conscience,
   and thus exposed itself to destruction. In the Catholic system the
   freedom and independence of the church involve the supremacy of an
   exclusive priesthood and papacy; in the Protestant, they can be
   realized only on the broader basis of the universal priesthood, in the
   self-government of the Christian people; though this is, as yet, in all
   Protestant established churches more or less restricted by the power of
   the state.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [237] In England and Scotland the term Erastianism is used for this;
   but is less general, and not properly applicable at all to the Greek
   church. For the man who furnished the word, Thomas Erastus, a learned
   and able physician and professor of medicine in Heidelberg (died at
   Basle in Switzerland, 1583), was an opponent not only of the
   independence of the church toward the state, but also of the church ban
   and of the presbyterial constitution and discipline, as advocated by
   Frederick III., of the Palatinate, and the authors of the Heidelberg
   Catechism, especially Olevianus, a pupil of Calvin. He was at last
   excommunicated for his views by the church council in Heidelberg.

   [238] His words, which are to be taken neither in jest and pun (as
   Neander supposes), nor as mere compliment to the bishops, but in
   earnest, run thus, in Eusebius: Vita Const. l. iv. c. 24: Humeis (the
   episkopoi addressed) men ton eiso tes ekklesias, ego de ton ektos hupo
   theou kathestamenos episkopos han eien. All depends here on the
   intrepretation of the antithesis tom eiso and ton ektos tes ekklesias.
   (a) The explanation of Stroth and others takes the genitive as
   masculine, hoi eiso denoting Christians, and hoi ektos heathens; so
   that Constantine ascribed to himself only a sort of episcopate in
   partibus infidelium. But this contradicts the connection; for Eusebius
   says immediately after, that he took a certain religious oversight over
   all his subjects (tous archomenous hapantas epeskopei, etc.), and calls
   him also elsewhere a universal bishop " (i. 44). (b) Gieseler's
   interpretation is not much better (I. 2. § 92, not. 20, Amer. ed. vol.
   i. p. 371): that hoi ektos denotes all his subjects, Christian as well
   as non-Christian, but only in their civil relations, so far as they are
   outside the church. This entirely blunts the antithesis with hoi eiso,
   and puts into the emperor's mouth a mere commonplace instead of a new
   idea; for no one doubted his political sovereignty. (c) The genitive is
   rather to be taken as neuter in both cases, and pragmaton to be
   supplied. This agrees with usage (we find it in Polybius), and gives a
   sense which agrees with the view of Eusebius and with the whole
   practice of Constantine. There is, however, of course, another
   question: What is the proper distinction between ta eiso and ta ektos
   the interna and externa of the church, or, what is much the same,
   between the sacerdotal jus in sacra and the imperial jus circa sacra.
   This Constantine and his age certainly could not themselves exactly
   define, since the whole relation was at that time as yet new and
   undeveloped.

   [239] Eusebius in fact calls him a divinely appointed universal bishop,
   hoia tis koinos episkopos ek theou dakestamenos , sunodous ton tou
   theou leitourgon sunekrotei. Vit. Const. i. 44. His son Constantius was
   fond of being called " bishop of bishops."

   [240] Justinian states the Byzantine theory thus, in the preface to the
   6th Novel: "Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dona Dei a superna collata
   clementia Sacerdotium et Imperium, et illud quidem divinis ministrans,
   hoc autem humanis praesidens ac diligentiam exhibens, ex uno eodemque
   principio utraque procedentia, humanam exornant vitam." But he then
   ascribes to the Imperium the supervision of the Sacerdotium, and
   "maximam sollicitudinem circa vera Dei dogmata et circa Sacerdotum
   honestatem." Later Greek emperors, on the ground of their anointing,
   even claimed a priestly character. Leo the Isaurian, for example, wrote
   to Pope Gregory II. in 730: basileus kai hiereus eimi (Mansi xii. 976).
   This, however, was contested even in the East, and the monk Maximus in
   655 answered negatively the question put to him: "Ergo non est omnis
   Christianus imperator etiam sacerdos?" At first the emperor's throne
   stood side by side with the bishop's in the choir; but Ambrose gave the
   emperor a seat next to the choir. Yet, after the ancient custom, which
   the Concilium Quinisext., a.d.692, in its 69th canon, expressly
   confirmed, the emperors might enter the choir of the church, and lay
   their oblations in person upon the altar--a privilege which was denied
   to all the laity, and which implied at least a half-priestly character
   in the emperor. Gibbon's statement needs correction accordingly (ch.
   xx.): "The monarch, whose spiritual rank is less honorable than that of
   the meanest deacon, was seated below the rails of the sanctuary, and
   confounded with the rest of the faithful multitude."

   [241] Lib. ii. c. 11, where the bishop is reminded of his exalted
   position, hos theoi tupon echon en anthropois to panton archein
   anthropon, hiereon, basileon, archonton, etc. Comp. c. 33 and 34.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 27. Restriction of Religious Freedom, and Beginnings of Persecution
   of Heretics.

   Sam. Eliot: History of Liberty. Boston, 1858, 4 vols. Early Christians,
   vols. i. and ii. The most important facts are scattered through the
   sections of the larger church histories on the heresies, the doctrinal
   controversies, and church discipline.

   An inevitable consequence of the union of church and state was
   restriction of religious freedom in faith and worship, and the civil
   punishment of departure from the doctrine and discipline of the
   established church.

   The church, dominant and recognized by the state, gained indeed
   external freedom and authority, but in a measure at the expense of
   inward liberty and self-control. She came, as we have seen in the
   previous section, under the patronage and supervision of the head of
   the Christian state, especially in the Byzantine empire. In the first
   three centuries, the church, with all her external lowliness and
   oppression, enjoyed the greater liberty within, in the development of
   her doctrines and institutions, by reason of her entire separation from
   the state.

   But the freedom of error and division was now still more restricted. In
   the ante-Nicene age, heresy and schism were as much hated and abhorred
   indeed, as afterward, yet were met only in a moral way, by word and
   writing, and were punished with excommunication from the rights of the
   church. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and even Lactantius were the first
   advocates of the principle of freedom of conscience, and maintained,
   against the heathen, that religion was essentially a matter of free
   will, and could be promoted only by instruction and persuasion not by
   outward force. [242] All they say against the persecution of Christians
   by the heathen applies in full to the persecution of heretics by the
   church. After the Nicene age all departures from the reigning
   state-church faith were not only abhorred and excommunicated as
   religious errors, but were treated also as crimes against the Christian
   state, and hence were punished with civil penalties; at first with
   deposition, banishment, confiscation, and, after Theodosius, even with
   death.

   This persecution of heretics was a natural consequence of the union of
   religious and civil duties and rights, the confusion of the civil and
   the ecclesiastical, the judicial and the moral, which came to pass
   since Constantine. It proceeded from the state and from the emperors,
   who in this respect showed themselves the successors of the Pontifices
   Maximi, with their relation to the church reversed. The church, indeed,
   steadfastly adhered to the principle that, as such, she should employ
   only spiritual penalties, excommunication in extreme cases; as in fact
   Christ and the apostles expressly spurned and prohibited all carnal
   weapons, and would rather suffer and die than use violence. But,
   involved in the idea of Jewish theocracy and of a state church, she
   practically confounded in various ways the position of the law and that
   of the gospel, and in theory approved the application of forcible
   measures to heretics, and not rarely encouraged and urged the state to
   it; thus making herself at least indirectly responsible for the
   persecution. This is especially, true of the Roman church in the times
   of her greatest power, in the middle age and down to the end of the
   sixteenth century; and by this course that church has made herself
   almost more offensive in the eyes of the world and of modern
   civilization than by her peculiar doctrines and usages. The Protestant
   reformation dispelled the dream that Christianity was identical with an
   outward organization, or the papacy, and gave a mighty shock thereby to
   the principle of ecclesiastical exclusiveness. Yet, properly speaking,
   it was not till the eighteenth century that a radical revolution of
   views was accomplished in regard to religious toleration; and the
   progress of toleration and free worship has gone hand in hand with the
   gradual loosening of the state-church basis and with the clearer
   separation of civil and religious rights and of the temporal and
   spiritual power.

   In the, beginning of his reign, Constantine proclaimed full freedom of
   religion (312), and in the main continued tolerably true to it; at all
   events he used no violent measures, as his successors did. This
   toleration, however, was not a matter of fixed principle with him, but
   merely of temporary policy; a necessary consequence of the incipient
   separation of the Roman throne from idolatry, and the natural
   transition from the sole supremacy of the heathen religion to the same
   supremacy of the Christian. Intolerance directed itself first against
   heathenism; but as the false religion gradually died out of itself, and
   at any rate had no moral energy for martyrdom, there resulted no such
   bloody persecutions of idolatry under the Christian emperors, as there
   had been of Christianity under their heathen predecessors. Instead of
   Christianity, the intolerance of the civil power now took up Christian
   heretics, whom it recognized as such. Constantine even in his day
   limited the freedom and the privileges which he conferred, to the
   catholic, that is, the prevailing orthodox hierarchical church, and
   soon after the Council of Nice, by an edict of the year 326, expressly
   excluded heretics and schismatics from these privileges. [243]
   Accordingly he banished the leaders of Arianism and ordered their
   writings to be burned, but afterward, wavering in his views of
   orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and persuaded over by some bishops and his
   sister, he recalled Arius and banished Athanasius. He himself was
   baptized shortly before his death by an Arian bishop. His son
   Constantius was a fanatical persecutor both of idolatry and the Nicene
   orthodoxy, and endeavored with all his might to establish Arianism
   alone in the empire. Hence the earnest protest of the orthodox bishops,
   Hosius, Athanasius, and Hilary, against this despotism and in favor of
   toleration; [244] which came, however, we have to remember, from
   parties who were themselves the sufferers under intolerance, and who
   did not regard the banishment of the Arians as unjust.

   Under Julian the Apostate religious liberty was again proclaimed, but
   only as the beginning of return to the exclusive establishment of
   heathenism; the counterpart, therefore, of Constantine's toleration.
   After his early death Arianism again prevailed, at least in the East,
   and showed itself more, intolerant and violent than the catholic
   orthodoxy.

   At last Theodosius the Great, the first emperor who was baptized in the
   Nicene faith, put an end to the Arian interregnum, proclaimed the
   exclusive authority of the Nicene creed, and at the same time enacted
   the first rigid penalties not only against the pagan idolatry, the
   practice of which was thenceforth a capital crime in the empire, but
   also against all Christian heresies and sects. The ruling principle of
   his public life was the unity of the empire and of the orthodox church.
   Soon after his baptism, in 380, he issued, in connection with his weak
   coëmperors, Gratian and Valentinian II., to the inhabitants of
   Constantinople, then the chief seat of Arianism, the following edict:
   "We, the three emperors, will, that all our subjects steadfastly adhere
   to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which has
   been faithfully preserved by tradition, and which is now professed by
   the pontiff Damasus, of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of
   apostolic holiness. According to the institution of the apostles and
   the doctrine of the gospel, let us believe in the one Godhead of the
   Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of equal majesty in the holy
   Trinity. We order that the adherents of this faith be called Catholic
   Christians; we brand all the senseless followers of other religions
   with the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles
   assuming the name of churches. Besides the condemnation of divine
   justice, they must expect the heavy penalties which our authority,
   guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict." [245] In the
   course of fifteen years this emperor issued at least fifteen penal laws
   against heretics, [246] by which he gradually deprived them of all
   right to the exercise of their religion, excluded them from all civil
   offices, and threatened them with fines, confiscation, banishment, and
   in some cases, as the Manichaeans, the Audians, and even the
   Quartodecimanians, with death.

   From Theodosius therefore dates the state-church theory of the
   persecution of heretics, and the embodiment of it in legislation. His
   primary design, it is true, was rather to terrify and convert, than to
   punish, the refractory subjects. [247]

   From the theory, however, to the practice was a single step; and this
   step his rival and colleague, Maximus, took, when, at the instigation
   of the unworthy bishop Ithacius, he caused the Spanish bishop,
   Priscillian, with six respectable adherents of his Manichaean-like sect
   (two presbyters, two deacons, the poet Latronian, and Euchrocia, a
   noble matron of Bordeaux), to be tortured and beheaded with the sword
   at Treves in 385. This was the first shedding of the blood of heretics
   by a Christian prince for religious opinions. The bishops assembled at
   Treves, with the exception of Theognistus, approved this act.

   But the better feeling of the Christian church shrank from it with
   horror. The bishops Ambrose of Milan, [248] and Martin of Tours, [249]
   raised a memorable protest against it, and broke off all communion with
   Ithacius and the other bishops who had approved the execution. Yet it
   should not be forgotten that these bishops, at least Ambrose, were
   committed against the death penalty in general, and in other respects
   had no indulgence for heathens and heretics. [250] The whole thing,
   too, was irregularly done; on the one hand the bishops appeared as
   accusers in a criminal cause, and on the other a temporal judge
   admitted an appeal from the episcopal jurisdiction, and pronounced an
   opinion in a matter of faith. Subsequently the functions of the
   temporal and spiritual courts in the trial of heretics were more
   accurately distinguished.

   The execution of the Priscillianists is the only instance of the bloody
   punishment of heretics in this period, as it is the first in the
   history of Christianity. But the propriety of violent measures against
   heresy was thenceforth vindicated even by the best fathers of the
   church. Chrysostom recommends, indeed, Christian love toward heretics
   and heathens, and declares against their execution, but approved the
   prohibition of their assemblies and the confiscation of their churches;
   and he acted accordingly against the Novatians and the
   Quartodecimanians, so that many considered his own subsequent
   misfortunes as condign punishment. [251] Jerome, appealing to Deut.
   xiii. 6-10, seems to justify even the penalty of death against
   religious errorists. [252]

   Augustine, who himself belonged nine years to the Manichaean sect, and
   was wonderfully converted by the grace of God to the Catholic church,
   without the slightest pressure from without, held at first the truly
   evangelical view, that heretics and schismatics should not be violently
   dealt with, but won by instruction and conviction; but after the year
   400 he turned and retracted this view, in consequence of his experience
   with the Donatists, whom he endeavored in vain to convert by
   disputation and writing, while many submitted to the imperial laws.
   [253] Thenceforth he was led to advocate the persecution of heretics,
   partly by his doctrine of the Christian state, partly by the seditious
   excesses of the fanatical Circumcelliones, partly by the hope of a
   wholesome effect of temporal punishments, and partly by a false
   interpretation of the Cogite intrare, in the parable of the great
   supper, Luke xiv. 23. [254] "It is, indeed, better," says he, "that men
   should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of
   punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the
   latter must not therefore be neglected .... Many must often be brought
   back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal
   suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious
   development .... The Lord himself orders that the guests be first
   invited, then compelled, to his great supper." [255] This father thinks
   that, if the state be denied the right to punish religious error,
   neither should she punish any other crime, like murder or adultery,
   since Paul, in Gal. v. 19, attributes divisions and sects to the same
   source in the flesh. [256] He charges his Donatist opponents with
   inconsistency in seeming to approve the emperors' prohibitions of
   idolatry, but condemning their persecution of Christian heretics. It is
   to the honor of Augustine's heart, indeed, that in actual cases he
   earnestly urged upon the magistrates clemency and humanity, and thus in
   practice remained true to his noble maxim: "Nothing conquers but truth,
   the victory of truth is love." [257] But his theory, as Neander justly
   observes, "contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual
   despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the
   Inquisition." [258] The great authority of his name was often afterward
   made to justify cruelties from which he himself would have shrunk with
   horror. Soon after him, Leo the Great, the first representative of
   consistent, exclusive, universal papacy, advocated even the penalty of
   death for heresy. [259]

   Henceforth none but the persecuted parties, from time to time,
   protested against religious persecution; being made, by their
   sufferings, if not from principle, at least from policy and
   self-interest, the advocates of toleration. Thus the Donatist bishop
   Petilian, in Africa, against whom Augustine wrote, rebukes his Catholic
   opponents, as formerly his countryman Tertullian had condemned the
   heathen persecutors of the Christians, for using outward force in
   matters of conscience; appealing to Christ and the apostles, who never
   persecuted, but rather suffered and died. "Think you," says he, "to
   serve God by killing us with your own hand? Ye err, ye err, if ye, poor
   mortals, think this; God has not hangmen for priests. Christ teaches us
   to bear wrong, not to revenge it." The Donatist bishop Gaudentius says:
   "God appointed prophets and fishermen, not princes and soldiers, to
   spread the faith." Still we cannot forget, that the Donatists were the
   first who appealed to the imperial tribunal in an ecclesiastical
   matter, and did not, till after that tribunal had decided against them,
   turn against the state-church system.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [242] Just. Mart. Apol. i. 2, 4, 12; Tertull. Apolog. c. 24, 28; Ad
   Scapul.c. 2; Lactant. Instit. v. 19, 20; Epit. c. 54. Comp. vol. i. §
   51.

   [243] Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 1: Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis
   indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse opportet.
   Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis
   alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et
   subjici.

   [244] Comp. § 8, above.

   [245] Cod. Theod. xvi, 1, 2. Baronius (Ann.), and even Godefroy call
   this edict which in this case, to be sure, favored the true doctrine,
   but involves the absolute despotism of the emperor over faith, an
   "edictum aureum, pium et salutare."

   [246] Comp. Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. v. leg. 6-33, and Godefroy's
   Commentary.

   [247] So Sozomen asserts, l. vii. c. 12.

   [248] Epist. xxiv. ad Valentin. (tom. ii. p. 891). He would have
   nothing to do with bishops, "qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem
   petebant."

   [249] In Sulpic. Sever., Hist. Sacra, ii. 50: "Namque tum Martinus apud
   Treveros constitutus, non desinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab
   accusatione desisteret, Maximum orare, ut sanguine infelicium
   abstineret: satis superque sufficere, ut episcopali sententia haeretici
   judicati ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut
   causam ecclesiae judex saeculi judicaret." Comp. Sulp. Sev., Dial. iii.
   c. 11-13, and his Vit. Mart. c. 20.

   [250] Hence Gibbon, ch. xxvii., charges them, not quite groundlessly,
   with inconsistency: "It is with pleasure that we can observe the human
   inconsistency of the most illustrious saints and bishops, Ambrose of
   Milan, and Martin of Tours, who, on this occasion, asserted the cause
   of toleration. They pitied the unhappy men who had been executed at
   Treves; they refused to hold communion with their episcopal murderers;
   and if Martin deviated from that generous resolution, his motives were
   laudable, and his repentance was exemplary. The bishops of Tours and
   Milan pronounced, without hesitation, the eternal damnation of
   heretics; but they were surprised and shocked by the bloody image of
   their temporal death, and the honest feelings of nature resisted the
   artificial prejudices of theology."

   [251] Hom. xxix. and xlvi. in Matt. Comp. Socrat. H. E. vi. 19.
   Elsewhere his principle was (in Phocam mart. et c. haer. tom. ii. p.
   705): Emoi ethos esti diokesthai kai me diokein; that is, he himself
   would rather suffer injury than inflict injury.

   [252] Epist. xxxvii. (al. liii.) ad Riparium Adv. Vigilantium.

   [253] Epist. 93, ad Vincent. § 17: "Mea primitus sententia non erat,
   nisi neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum,
   disputatione pugnandum, ratione vincendum, ne fictos catholicos
   haberemus, quos apertos haereticos noveramus. Sed--he continues § haec
   opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur
   exemplis." Then he adduces his experience with the Donatists. Comp.
   Retract. ii. 5.

   [254] The direction: "Compel them to come in," which has often since
   been abused in defence of coercive measures against heretics, must, of
   course, be interpreted in harmony with the whole spirit of the gospel,
   and is only a strong descriptive term in the parable, to signify the
   fervent zeal in the conversion of the heathen, such as St. Paul
   manifested without ever resorting to physical coercion.

   [255] Epist. 185, ad Bonifacium, § 21, § 24.

   [256] C. Gaudent. Donat. i. § 20. C. Epist. Parmen. i. § 16.

   [257] "Non vincit nisi veritas, victoria veritatis est caritas."

   [258] Kirchengesch. iii. p. 427; Torrey's ed. ii. p. 217.

   [259] Epist. xv. ad Turribium, where Leo mentions the execution of the
   Priscillianists with evident approbation: "Etiam mundi principes ita
   hanc sacrilegam amentiam detestati sunt, ut auctorem ejus cum plerisque
   discipulis legum publicarum ense prosternerent."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER IV.

   THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF MONASTICISM.

   SOURCES.

   1. Greek: Socrates: Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. 23 sqq. Sozomen: H. E.
   l. i. c. 12-14; iii. 14; vi. 28-34. Palladius (first a monk and
   disciple of the younger Macarius, then bishop of Helenopolis in
   Bithynia, ordained by Chrysostom; 431): Historia Lausiaca (Historia
   pros Lauson, a court officer under Theodosius II, to whom the work was
   dedicated), composed about 421, with enthusiastic admiration, from
   personal acquaintance, of the most celebrated contemporaneous ascetics
   of Egypt. Theodoret (457): Historia religiosa, seu ascetica vivendi
   ratio (philotheos histopia), biographies of thirty Oriental anchorets
   and monks, for the most part from personal observation. Nilus the Elder
   (an anchoret on Mt. Sinai, about 450): De vita ascetica, De
   exercitatione monastica, Epistolae 355, and other writings.

   2. Latin: Rufinus (410): Histor. Eremitica, S. Vitae Patrum. Sulpicius
   Severus (about 400): Dialogi III. (the first dialogue contains a lively
   and entertaining account of the Egyptian monks, whom he visited; the
   two others relate to Martin of Tours). Cassianus (432): Institutiones
   coenobiales, and Collationes Patrum (spiritual conversations of eastern
   monks).

   Also the ascetic writings of Athanasius (Vita Antonii), Basil, Gregory
   Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium, among the Greek;
   Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome (his Lives of anchorets, and his letters),
   Cassiodorus, and Gregory the Great, among the Latin fathers.

   LATER LITERATURE.

   L. Holstenius (born at Hamburg 1596, a Protest., then a Romanist
   convert, and librarian of the Vatican): Codex regularum monastic.,
   first Rom. 1661; then, enlarged, Par. and Augsb. in 6 vols. fol. The
   older Greek Menologia (menologia), and Menaea (menaia), and the Latin
   Calendaria and Martyrologia, i.e. church calendars or indices of
   memorial days (days of the earthly death and heavenly birth) of the
   saints, with short biographical notices for liturgical use. P. Herbert
   Rosweyde (Jesuit): Vitae Patrum, sive Historiae Eremiticae, libri x.
   Antw. 1628. Acta Sanctorum, quotquot toto orbe coluntur, Antw.
   1643-1786, 53 vols. fol. (begun by the Jesuit Bollandus, continued by
   several scholars of his order, called Bollandists, down to the 11th
   Oct. in the calendar of saints' days, and resumed in 1845, after long
   interruption, by Theiner and others). D'achery and Mabillon
   (Benedictines): Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti, Par. 1668-1701, 9
   vols. fol. (to 1100). Pet. Helyot (Franciscan): Histoire des ordres
   monastiques religieux et militaires, Par. 1714-'19, 8 vols. 4to. Alban
   Butler (R.C.): The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other principal
   Saints (arranged according to the Catholic calendar, and completed to
   the 31st Dec.), first 1745; often since (best ed. Lond. 1812-'13) in 12
   vols.; another, Baltimore, 1844, in 4 vols). Gibbon: Chap. xxxvii.
   (Origin, Progress, and Effects of Monastic Life; very unfavorable, and
   written in lofty philosophical contempt). Henrion (R.C.): Histoire des
   ordres religieux, Par. 1835 (deutsch bearbeitet von S. Fehr, Tüb. 1845,
   2 vols.). F. v. Biedenfeld: Ursprung u. s. w. saemmtlicher Mönchsorden
   im Orient u. Occident, Weimar, 1837, 3 vols. Schmidt (R.C.): Die
   Mönchs-, Nonnen-, u. geistlichen Ritterorden nebst Ordensregeln u.
   Abbildungen., Augsb. 1838, sqq. H. H. Milman (Anglican): History of
   Ancient Christianity, 1844, book iii. ch. 11. H. Ruffner
   (Presbyterian): The Fathers of the Desert, New York, 1850, 2 vols.
   (full of curious information, in popular form). Count de Montalembert
   (R.C.): Les Moines d'Occident depuis St. Bénoit jusqu'à St. Bernard,
   Par. 1860, sqq. (to embrace 6 vols.); transl. into English: The Monks
   of the West, etc., Edinb. and Lond. 1861, in 2 vols. (vol. i. gives the
   history of monasticism before St. Benedict, vol. ii. is mainly devoted
   to St. Benedict; eloquently eulogistic of, and apologetic for,
   monasticism). Otto Zöckler: Kritische Geschichte der Askese. Frankf. a.
   M. 1863. Comp. also the relevant sections of Tillemont, Fleury,
   Schröckh (vols. v. and viii.), Neander, and Gieseler.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 28. Origin of Christian Monasticism. Comparison with other forms of
   Asceticism.

   Hospinian: De origine et progressu monachatus, l. vi., Tig. 1588, and
   enlarged, Genev. 1669, fol. J. A. Möhler (R.C.): Geschichte des
   Mönchthums in der Zeit seiner Entstehung u. ersten Ausbildung, 1836 (in
   his collected works, Regensb. vol. ii. p. 165 sqq.). Isaac Taylor
   (Independent): Ancient Christianity, Lond. 1844, vol. i. p. 299 sqq. A.
   Vogel: Ueber das Mönchthum, Berl. 1858 (in the "Deutsche Zeitschrift
   für christl. Wissenschaft," etc.). P. Schaff: Ueber den Ursprung und
   Charakter des Mönchthums (in Dorner's, etc. "Jahrbücher für deutsche
   Theol.," 1861, p. 555 ff.). J. Cropp: Origenes et causae monachatus.
   Gott. 1863.

   In the beginning of the fourth century monasticism appears in the
   history of the church, and thenceforth occupies a distinguished place.
   Beginning in Egypt, it spread in an irresistible tide over the East and
   the West, continued to be the chief repository of the Christian life
   down to the times of the Reformation, and still remains in the Greek
   and Roman churches an indispensable institution and the most productive
   seminary of saints, priests, and missionaries.

   With the ascetic tendency in general, monasticism in particular is
   found by no means only in the Christian church, but in other religions,
   both before and after Christ, especially in the East. It proceeds from
   religious seriousness, enthusiasm, and ambition; from a sense of the
   vanity of the world, and an inclination of noble souls toward solitude,
   contemplation, and freedom from the bonds of the flesh and the
   temptations of the world; but it gives this tendency an undue
   predominance over the social, practical, and world-reforming spirit of
   religion. Among the Hindoos the ascetic system may be traced back
   almost to the time of Moses, certainly beyond Alexander the Great, who
   found it there in full force, and substantially with the same
   characteristics which it presents at the present day. [260] Let us
   consider it a few moments.

   The Vedas, portions of which date from the fifteenth century before
   Christ, the Laws of Menu, which were completed before the rise of
   Buddhism, that is, six or seven centuries before our era, and the
   numerous other sacred books of the Indian religion, enjoin by example
   and precept entire abstraction of thought, seclusion from the world,
   and a variety of penitential and meritorious acts of
   self-mortification, by which the devotee assumes a proud superiority
   over the vulgar herd of mortals, and is absorbed at last into the
   divine fountain of all being. The ascetic system is essential alike to
   Brahmanism and Buddhism, the two opposite and yet cognate branches of
   the Indian religion, which in many respects are similarly related to
   each other as Judaism is to Christianity, or also as Romanism to
   Protestantism. Buddhism is a later reformation of Brahmanism; it dates
   probably from the sixth century before Christ (according to other
   accounts much earlier), and, although subsequently expelled by the
   Brahmins from Hindostan, it embraces more followers than any other
   heathen religion, since it rules in Farther India, nearly all the
   Indian islands, Japan, Thibet, a great part of China and Central Asia
   to the borders of Siberia. But the two religions start from opposite
   principles. Brahmanic asceticism [261] proceeds from a pantheistic view
   of the world, the Buddhistic from an atheistic and nihilistic, yet very
   earnest view; the one if; controlled by the idea of the absolute but
   abstract unity and a feeling of contempt of the world, the other by the
   idea of the absolute but unreal variety and a feeling of deep grief
   over the emptiness and nothingness of all existence; the one is
   predominantly objective, positive, and idealistic, the other more
   subjective, negative, and realistic; the one aims at an absorption into
   the universal spirit of Brahm, the other consistently at an absorption
   into nonentity, if it be true that Buddhism starts from an atheistic
   rather than a pantheistic or dualistic basis. "Brahmanism"--says a
   modern writer on the subject [262] --"looks back to the beginning,
   Buddhism to the end; the former loves cosmogony, the latter
   eschatology. Both reject the existing world; the Brahman despises it,
   because he contrasts it with the higher being of Brahma, the Buddhist
   bewails it because of its unrealness; the former sees God in all, the
   other emptiness in all." Yet as all extremes meet, the abstract
   all-entity of Brahmanism and the equally abstract non-entity or vacuity
   of Buddhism come to the same thing in the end, and may lead to the same
   ascetic practices. The asceticism of Brahmanism takes more the
   direction of anchoretism, while that of Buddhism exists generally in
   the social form of regular convent life.

   The Hindoo monks or gymnosophists (naked philosophers), as the Greeks
   called them, live in woods, caves, on mountains, or rocks, in poverty,
   celibacy, abstinence, silence: sleeping on straw or the bare ground,
   crawling on the belly, standing all day on tiptoe, exposed to the
   pouring rain or scorching sun with four fires kindled around them,
   presenting a savage and frightful appearance, yet greatly revered by
   the multitude, especially the women, and performing miracles, not
   unfrequently completing their austerities by suicide on the stake or in
   the waves of the Ganges. Thus they are described by the ancients and by
   modern travellers. The Buddhist monks are less fanatical and
   extravagant than the Hindoo Yogis and Fakirs. They depend mainly on
   fasting, prayer, psalmody, intense contemplation, and the use of the
   whip, to keep their rebellious flesh in subjection. They have a fully
   developed system of monasticism in connection with their priesthood,
   and a large number of convents; also nunneries for female devotees. The
   Buddhist monasticism, especially in Thibet, with its vows of celibacy,
   poverty, and obedience, its common meals, readings, and various pious
   exercises, bears such a remarkable resemblance to that of the Roman
   Catholic church that Roman missionaries thought it could be only
   explained as a diabolical imitation. [263] But the original always
   precedes the caricature, and the ascetic system was completed in India
   long before the introduction of Christianity, even if we should trace
   this back to St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas.

   The Hellenic heathenism was less serious and contemplative, indeed,
   than the Oriental; yet the Pythagoreans were a kind of monastic
   society, and the Platonic view of matter and of body not only lies at
   the bottom of the Gnostic and Manichaean asceticism, but had much to do
   also with the ethics of Origen and the Alexandrian School.

   Judaism, apart from the ancient Nazarites, [264] had its Essenes in
   Palestine [265] and its Therapeutae in Egypt; [266] though these betray
   the intrusion of foreign elements into the Mosaic religion, and so find
   no mention in the New Testament.

   Lastly, Mohammedanism, though in mere imitation of Christian and pagan
   examples, has, as is well known, its dervises and its cloisters. [267]

   Now were these earlier phenomena the source, or only analogies, of the
   Christian monasticism? That a multitude of foreign usages and rites
   made their way into the church in the age of Constantine, is
   undeniable. Hence many have held, that monasticism also came from
   heathenism, and was an apostasy from apostolic Christianity, which Paul
   had plainly foretold in the Pastoral Epistles. [268] But such a view
   can hardly be reconciled with the great place of this phenomenon in
   history; and would, furthermore, involve the entire ancient church,
   with its greatest and best representatives both east and west, its
   Athanasius, its Chrysostom, its Jerome, its Augustine, in the predicted
   apostasy from the faith. And no one will now hold, that these men, who
   all admired and commended the monastic life, were antichristian
   errorists, and that the few and almost exclusively negative opponents
   of that asceticism, as Jovinian, Helvidius, and Vigilantius, were the
   sole representatives of pure Christianity in the Nicene and next
   following age.

   In this whole matter we must carefully distinguish two forms of
   asceticism, antagonistic and irreconcilable in spirit and principle,
   though similar in form: the Gnostic dualistic, and the Catholic. The
   former of these did certainly come from heathenism; but the latter
   sprang independently from the Christian spirit of self-denial and
   longing for moral perfection, and, in spite of all its excrescences,
   has fulfilled an important mission in the history of the church.

   The pagan monachism, the pseudo-Jewish, the heretical Christian, above
   all the Gnostic and Manichaean, is based on in irreconcilable
   metaphysical dualism between mind and matter; the Catholic Christian
   Monachism arises from the moral conflict between the spirit and the
   flesh. The former is prompted throughout by spiritual pride and
   selfishness; the latter, by humility and love to God and man. The false
   asceticism aims at annihilation of the body and pantheistic absorption
   of the human being in the divine; the Christian strives after the
   glorification of the body and personal fellowship with the living God
   in Christ. And the effects of the two are equally different. Though it
   is also unquestionable, that, notwithstanding this difference of
   principle, and despite the condemnation of Gnosticism and Manichaeism,
   the heathen dualism exerted a powerful influence on the Catholic
   asceticism and its view of the world, particularly upon anchoretism and
   monasticism in the East, and has been fully overcome only in
   evangelical Protestantism. The precise degree of this influence, and
   the exact proportion of Christian and heathen ingredients in the early
   monachism of the church, were an interesting subject of special
   investigation.

   The germs of the Christian monasticism may be traced as far back as the
   middle of the second century, and in fact faintly even in the anxious
   ascetic practices of some of the Jewish Christians in the apostolic
   age. This asceticism, particularly fasting and celibacy, was commended
   more or less distinctly by the most eminent ante-Nicene fathers, and
   was practised, at least partially, by a particular class of Christians
   (by Origen even to the unnatural extreme of self-emasculation). [269]
   So early as the Decian persecution, about the year 250, we meet also
   the first instances of the flight of ascetics or Christian philosophers
   into the wilderness; though rather in exceptional cases, and by way of
   escape from personal danger. So long as the church herself was a child
   of the desert, and stood in abrupt opposition to the persecuting world,
   the ascetics of both sexes usually lived near the congregations or in
   the midst of them, often even in the families, seeking there to realize
   the ideal of Christian perfection. But when, under Constantine, the
   mass of the population of the empire became nominally Christian, they
   felt, that in this world-church, especially in such cities as
   Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, they were not at home, and
   voluntarily retired into waste and desolate places and mountain clefts,
   there to work out the salvation of their souls undisturbed.

   Thus far monachism is a reaction against the secularizing state-church
   system and the decay of discipline, and an earnest, well-meant, though
   mistaken effort to save the virginal purity of the Christian church by
   transplanting it in the wilderness. The moral corruption of the Roman
   empire, which had the appearance of Christianity, but was essentially
   heathen in the whole framework of society, the oppressiveness of taxes
   [270] the extremes of despotism and slavery, of extravagant luxury and
   hopeless poverty, the repletion of all classes, the decay of all
   productive energy in science and art, and the threatening incursions of
   barbarians on the frontiers--all favored the inclination toward
   solitude in just the most earnest minds.

   At the same time, however, monasticism afforded also a compensation for
   martyrdom, which ceased with the Christianization of the state, and
   thus gave place to a voluntary martyrdom, a gradual self-destruction, a
   sort of religious suicide. In the burning deserts and awful caverns of
   Egypt and Syria, amidst the pains of self-torture, the mortification of
   natural desires, and relentless battles with hellish monsters, the
   ascetics now sought to win the crown of heavenly glory, which their
   predecessors in the times of persecution had more quickly and easily
   gained by a bloody death.

   The native land of the monastic life was Egypt, the land where Oriental
   and Grecian literature, philosophy, and religion, Christian orthodoxy
   and Gnostic heresy, met both in friendship and in hostility.
   Monasticism was favored and promoted here by climate and geographic
   features, by the oasis-like seclusion of the country, by the bold
   contrast of barren deserts with the fertile valley of the Nile, by the
   superstition, the contemplative turn, and the passive endurance of the
   national character, by the example of the Therapeutae, and by the moral
   principles of the Alexandrian fathers; especially by Origen's theory of
   a higher and lower morality and of the merit of voluntary poverty and
   celibacy. Aelian says of the Egyptians, that they bear the most
   exquisite torture without a murmur, and would rather be tormented to
   death than compromise truth. Such natures, once seized with religious
   enthusiasm, were eminently qualified for saints of the desert.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [260] Comp. the occasional notices of the Indian gymnosophists in
   Strabo (lib. xv. cap. 1, after accounts from the time of Alexander the
   Great), Arrian (Exped. Alex. l. vii. c. 1-3, and Hist. Ind. c. 11),
   Plinius (Hist Nat. vii. 2), Diodorus Siculus (lib. ii.), Plutarch
   (Alex. 64), Porphyry (De abstinent. l. iv.), Lucian (Fugit. 7), Clemens
   Alex. (Strom. l. i. and iii.), and Augustine(De Civit. Dei, l. xiv. c.
   17: "Per opacas Indiae solitudines, quum quidam nudi philosophentur,
   unde gymnosophistae nominantur; adhibent tamen genitalibus tegmina,
   quibus per caetera membrorum carent;" and l. xv. 20, where he denies
   all merit to their celibacy, because it is not "secundum fidem summi
   boni, qui est Deus"). With these ancient representations agree the
   narratives of Fon Koueki (about 400, translated by M. A. Rémusat, Par.
   1836), Marco Polo (1280), Bernier (1670), Hamilton (1700), Papi,
   Niebuhr, Orlich, Sonnerat, and others.

   [261] The Indian word for it is tapas, i.e. the burning out, or the
   extinction of the individual being and its absorption into the essence
   of Brahma.

   [262] Ad. Wuttke, in his able and instructive work: Das Geistesleben
   der Chinesen, Japaner, und Indier(second part of his History of
   Heathenism), 1853, p. 593.

   [263] See the older accounts of Catholic missionaries to Thibet, in
   Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. vii., and also the
   recent work of Huc, a French missionary priest of the congregation of
   St. Lazare: Souvenirs d'un Voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet, et la
   Chine, pendant les années1844-1846. Comp. also on the whole subject the
   two works of R. S. Hardy: "Eastern Monachism" and "A Manual of Buddhism
   in its modern development, translated from Singalese MSS." Lond. 1850.
   The striking affinity between Buddhism and Romanism extends, by the
   way, beyond monkery and convent life to the heirarchical organization,
   with the Grand Lama for pope, and to the worship, with its ceremonies,
   feasts, processions, pilgrimages, confessional, a kind of mass, prayers
   for the dead, extreme unction, &c. The view is certainly at least
   plausible, to which the great geographer Carl Ritter (Erdkunde, ii. p.
   283-299, 2d ed.) has given the weight of his name, that the Lamaists in
   Thibet borrowed their religious forms and ceremonies in part from the
   Nestorian missionaries. But this view is a mere hypothesis, and is
   rendered improbable by the fact, that Buddhism in Cochin China,
   Tonquin, and Japan, where no Nestorian missionaries ever were, shows
   the same striking resemblance to Romanism as the Lamaism of Thibet,
   Tartary, and North China. Respecting the singular tradition of Prester
   John, or the Christian priest-king in Eastern Asia, which arose about
   the eleventh century, and respecting the Nestorian missions, see
   Ritter, l.c.

   [264] Comp. Num. vi. 1-21.

   [265] Comp. the remarkable description of these Jewish monks by the
   elder Pliny, Hist. Natur. v. 15: "Gens sola, et in toto orbe praeter
   caeteros mira, sine ulla femina, omni venere abdicata, sine pecunia,
   socia palmarum. Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens
   aeterna est in qua nemo nascitur. Tam foecunda illis aliorum vitae
   penitentia est."

   [266] Eusebius, H. E. ii. 17, erroneously takes them for Christians.

   [267] H. Ruffner, l.c. vol. i. ch. ii.-ix., gives an extended
   description of these extra-Christian forms of monasticism, and derives
   the Christian from them, especially from the Buddhist.

   [268] So even Calvin, who, in his commentary on 1 Tim. iv. 3, refers
   Paul's prophecy of the ascetic apostasy primarily to the Encratites,
   Gnostics, Montanists, and Manichaeans, but extends it also to the
   Papists, "quando coelibatum et ciborum abstinentiam severius urgent
   quam ullum Dei praeceptum." So, recently, Ruffner, and especially Is.
   Taylor, who, in his "Ancient Christianity," vol. i. p. 299 sqq., has a
   special chapter on The Predicted Ascetic Apostasy. The best modern
   interpreters, however, are agreed, that the apostle has the heretical
   Gnostic dualistic asceticism in his eye, which forbade marriage and
   certain meats as intrinsically impure; whereas the Roman and Greek
   churches make marriage a sacrament, only subordinate it to celibacy,
   and limit the prohibition of it to priests and monks. The application
   of 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 to the Catholic church is, therefore, admissible at
   most only in a partial and indirect way.

   [269] Comp. vol. i. § 94-97.

   [270] Lactantius says it was necessary to buy even the liberty of
   breathing, and according to Zosimus (Hist. ii. 38) the fathers
   prostituted their daughters to have means to pay their tax.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 29. Development of Monasticism.

   In the historical development of the monastic institution we must
   distinguish four stages. The first three were completed in the fourth
   century; the remaining one reached maturity in the Latin church of the
   middle age.

   The first stage is an ascetic life as yet not organized nor separated
   from the church. It comes down from the ante-Nicene age, and has been
   already noticed. It now took the form, for the most part, of either
   hermit or coenobite life, but continued in the church itself,
   especially among the clergy, who might be called half monks.

   The second stage is hermit life or anchoretism. [271] It arose in the
   beginning of the fourth century, gave asceticism a fixed and permanent
   shape, and pushed it to even external separation from the world. It
   took the prophets Elijah and John the Baptist for its models, and went
   beyond them. Not content with partial and temporary retirement from
   common life, which may be united with social intercourse and useful
   labors, the consistent anchoret secludes himself from all society, even
   from kindred ascetics, and comes only exceptionally into contact with
   human affairs, either to receive the visits of admirers of every class,
   especially of the sick and the needy (which were very frequent in the
   case of the more celebrated monks), or to appear in the cities on some
   extraordinary occasion, as a spirit from another world. His clothing is
   a hair shirt and a wild beast's skin; his food, bread and salt; his
   dwelling, a cave; his employment, prayer, affliction of the body, and
   conflict with satanic powers and wild images of fancy. This mode of
   life was founded by Paul of Thebes and St. Anthony, and came to
   perfection in the East. It was too eccentric and unpractical for the
   West, and hence less frequent there, especially in the rougher
   climates. To the female sex it was entirely unsuited. There was a class
   of hermits, the Sarabaites in Egypt, and the Rhemoboths in Syria, who
   lived in bands of at least two or three together; but their
   quarrelsomeness, occasional intemperance, and opposition to the clergy,
   brought them into ill repute.

   The third step in the progress of the monastic life brings us to
   coenobitism or cloister life, monasticism in the ordinary sense of the
   word. [272] It originated likewise in Egypt, from the example of the
   Essenes and Therapeutae, and was carried by St. Pachomius to the East,
   and afterward by St. Benedict to the West. Both these ascetics, like
   the most celebrated order-founders of later days, were originally
   hermits. Cloister life is a regular organization of the ascetic life on
   a social basis. It recognizes, at least in a measure, the social
   element of human nature, and represents it in a narrower sphere
   secluded from the larger world. As hermit life often led to cloister
   life, so the cloister life was not only a refuge for the spirit weary
   of the world, but also in many ways a school for practical life in the
   church. It formed the transition from isolated to social Christianity.
   It consists in an association of a number of anchorets of the same sex
   for mutual advancement in ascetic holiness. The coenobites live,
   somewhat according to the laws of civilization, under one roof, and
   under a superintendent or abbot. [273] They divide their time between
   common devotions and manual labor, and devote their surplus provisions
   to charity; except the mendicant monks, who themselves live by alms. In
   this modified form monasticism became available to the female sex, to
   which the solitary desert life was utterly impracticable; and with the
   cloisters of monks, there appear at once cloisters also of nuns. [274]
   Between the anchorets and the coenobites no little jealousy reigned;
   the former charging the latter with ease and conformity to the world;
   the latter accusing the former of selfishness and misanthropy. The most
   eminent church teachers generally prefer the cloister life. But the
   hermits, though their numbers diminished, never became extinct. Many a
   monk was a hermit first, and then a coenobite; and many a coenobite
   turned to a hermit.

   The same social impulse, finally, which produced monastic
   congregations, led afterward to monastic orders, unions of a number of
   cloisters under one rule and a common government. In this fourth and
   last stage monasticism has done most for the diffusion of Christianity
   and the advancement of learning, [275] has fulfilled its practical
   mission in the Roman Catholic church, and still wields a mighty
   influence there. At the same time it became in some sense the cradle of
   the German reformation. Luther belonged to the order of St. Augustine,
   and the monastic discipline of Erfurt was to him a preparation for
   evangelical freedom, as the Mosaic law was to Paul a schoolmaster to
   lead to Christ. And for this very reason Protestantism is the end of
   the monastic life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [271] From anachoreo, to retire (from human society), anachoretes,
   eremites(from eremia, a desert). The word monachos(from monos, alone,
   and monazein, to live alone), monachus (whence monk), also points
   originally to solitary, hermit life, but is commonly synonymous with
   coenobite or friar.

   [272] Koinobion, coenobium; from koinos bios, vita communis; then the
   congregation of monks; sometimes also used for the building. In the
   same sense mandra, stable, fold, and monasterion, claustrum (whence
   cloister). Also laurai, laurae (literally, streets), that is cells, of
   which usually a number were built not far apart, so as to form a
   hamlet. Hence this term is often used in the same sense as monasterium.
   The singular, laura, however, answers to the anchoret life. On this
   nomenclature of monasticism comp. Du Cange, in the Glossarium mediae et
   infimae Latinitatis, under the respective words.

   [273] Hegoumenos, archemandrites , abbas, i.e. father, hence abbot. A
   female superintendent was called in Syriac ammas, mother, abbess.

   [274] From nonna, i.e. casta, chaste, holy. The word is probably of
   Coptic origin, and occurs as early as in Jerome. The masculine nonnus,
   monk, appears frequently in the middle age. Comp. the examples in Du
   Cange, s. v.

   [275] Hence Middleton says, not without reason: "By all which I have
   ever read of the old, and have seen of the modern monks, I take the
   preference to be clearly due to the last, as having a more regular
   discipline, more good learning, and less superstition among them than
   the first."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 30. Nature and Aim of Monasticism.

   Monasticism was from the first distinguished as the contemplative life
   from the practical. [276] It passed with the ancient church for the
   true, the divine, or Christian philosophy, [277] an unworldly purely
   apostolic, angelic life. [278] It rests upon an earnest view of life;
   upon the instinctive struggle after perfect dominion of the spirit over
   the flesh, reason over sense, the supernatural over the natural, after
   the highest grade of holiness and an undisturbed communion of the soul
   with God; but also upon a morbid depreciation of the body, the family,
   the state, and the divinely established social order of the world. It
   recognizes the world, indeed, as a creature of God, and the family and
   property as divine institutions, in opposition to the Gnostic
   Manichaean asceticism, which ascribes matter as such to an evil
   principle. But it makes a distinction between two grades of morality: a
   common and lower grade, democratic, so to speak, which moves in the
   natural ordinances of God; and a higher, extraordinary, aristocratic
   grade, which lies beyond them and is attended with special merit. It
   places the great problem of Christianity not in the transformation, but
   in the abandonment, of the world. It is an extreme unworldliness, over
   against the worldliness of the mass of the visible church in union with
   the state. It demands entire renunciation, not only of sin, but also of
   property and of marriage, which are lawful in themselves, ordained by
   God himself, and indispensable to the continuance and welfare of the
   human race. The poverty of the individual, however, does not exclude
   the possession of common property; and it is well known, that some
   monastic orders, especially the Benedictines, have in course of time
   grown very rich. The coenobite institution requires also absolute
   obedience to the will of the superior, as the visible representative of
   Christ. As obedience to orders and sacrifice of self is the first duty
   of the soldier, and the condition of military success and renown, so
   also in this spiritual army in its war against the flesh, the world,
   and the devil, monks are not allowed to have a will of their own. To
   them may be applied the lines of Tennyson: [279]


   "Theirs not to reason why,

   Theirs not to make reply,

   Theirs but to do and die."

   Voluntary poverty, voluntary celibacy, and absolute obedience form the
   three monastic vows, as they are called, and are supposed to constitute
   a higher virtue and to secure a higher reward in heaven.

   But this threefold self-denial is only the negative side of the matter,
   and a means to an end. It places man beyond the reach of the
   temptations connected with earthly possessions, married life, and
   independent will, and facilitates his progress toward heaven. The
   positive aspect of monasticism is unreserved surrender of the whole
   man, with all his time and strength, to God; though, as we have said,
   not within, but without the sphere of society and the order of nature.
   This devoted life is employed in continual prayer, meditation, fasting,
   and castigation of the body. Some votaries went so far as to reject all
   bodily employment, for its interference with devotion. But in general a
   moderate union of spiritual exercises with scientific studies or with
   such manual labor as agriculture, basket making, weaving, for their own
   living and the support of the poor, was held not only lawful but
   wholesome for monks. It was a proverb, that a laborious monk was beset
   by only one devil; an idle one, by a legion.

   With all the austerities and rigors of asceticism, the monastic life
   had its spiritual joys and irresistible charms for noble,
   contemplative, and heaven-aspiring souls, who fled from the turmoil and
   vain show of the city as a prison, and turned the solitude into a
   paradise of freedom and sweet communion with God and his saints; while
   to others the same solitude became a fruitful nursery of idleness,
   despondency, and the most perilous temptations and ultimate ruin. [280]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [276] Bios theoretikos , and bios praktikos, according to Gregory
   Nazianzen and others. Throughout the middle age the distinction between
   the vita contemplativa and the vita activa was illustrated by the two
   sisters of Lazarus, Luke x. 38-42.

   [277] He kata theon or Christon philosophia, he hupsele philos., i.e.
   in the sense of the ancients, not so much a speculative system, as a
   mode of life under a particular rule. So in the Pythagoreans, Stoics,
   Cynics, and Neo-Platonists. Ascetic and philosopher are the same.

   [278] Apostolikos bios , ho ton angelon bios, vita angelica; after an
   unwarranted application of Christ's word respecting the sexless life of
   the angels, Matt. xxii. 30, which is not presented here as a model for
   imitation, but only mentioned as an argument against the Sadducees.

   [279] ln his famous battle poem: "The Charge of the Light Brigade at
   Balaclava," first ed. 1854.

   [280] Comp. the truthful remark of Yves de Chartres, of the twelfth
   century, Ep. 192 (quoted by Montalembert): "Non beatum faciunt hominem
   secreta sylvarum, cacumina montium, si secum non habet solitudinem
   mentis, sabbatum cordis, tranquillitatem conscientiae, ascensiones in
   corde, sine quibus omnem solitudinem comitantur mentis acedia,
   curiositas, vana gloria, periculosae tentationum procellae."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 31. Monasticism and the Bible.

   Monasticism, therefore, claims to be the highest and purest form of
   Christian piety and virtue, and the surest way to heaven. Then, we
   should think, it must be preëminently commended in the Bible, and
   actually exhibited in the life of Christ and the apostles. But just in
   this biblical support it falls short.

   The advocates of it uniformly refer first to the examples of Elijah,
   Elisha, and John the Baptist; [281] but these stand upon the legal
   level of the Old Testament, and are to be looked upon as extraordinary
   personages of an extraordinary age; and though they may be regarded as
   types of a partial anchoretism (not of cloister life), still they are
   nowhere commended to our imitation in this particular, but rather in
   their influence upon the world.

   The next appeal is to a few isolated passages of the New Testament,
   which do not, indeed, in their literal sense require the renunciation
   of property and marriage, yet seem to recommend it as a special,
   exceptional form of piety for those Christians who strive after higher
   perfection. [282]

   Finally, as respects the spirit of the monastic life, reference is
   sometimes made even to the poverty of Christ and his apostles, to the
   silent, contemplative Mary, in contrast with the busy, practical
   Martha, and to the voluntary community of goods in the first Christian
   church in Jerusalem.

   But this monastic interpretation of primitive Christianity mistakes a
   few incidental points of outward resemblance for essential identity,
   measures the spirit of Christianity by some isolated passages, instead
   of explaining the latter from the former, and is upon the whole a
   miserable emaciation and caricature. The gospel makes upon all men
   virtually the same moral demand, and knows no distinction of a religion
   for the masses and another for the few.

   Jesus, the model for all believers, was neither a coenobite, nor an
   anchoret, nor an ascetic of any kind, but the perfect pattern man for
   universal imitation. There is not a trace of monkish austerity and
   ascetic rigor in his life or precepts, but in all his acts and words a
   wonderful harmony of freedom and purity, of the most comprehensive
   charity and spotless holiness. He retired to the mountains and into
   solitude, but only temporarily, and for the purpose of renewing his
   strength for active work. Amidst the society of his disciples, of both
   sexes, with kindred and friends, in Cana and Bethany, at the table of
   publicans and sinners, and in intercourse with all classes of the
   people, he kept himself unspotted from the world, and transfigured the
   world into the kingdom of God. His poverty and celibacy have nothing to
   do with asceticism, but represent, the one the condescension of his
   redeeming love, the other his ideal uniqueness and his absolutely
   peculiar relation to the whole church, which alone is fit or worthy to
   be his bride. No single daughter of Eve could have been an equal
   partner of the Saviour of mankind, or the representative head of the
   new creation.

   The example of the sister of Lazarus proves only, that the
   contemplative life may dwell in the same house with the practical, and
   with the other sex, but justifies no separation from the social ties.

   The life of the apostles and primitive Christians in general was
   anything but a hermit life; else had not the gospel spread so quickly
   to all the cities of the Roman world. Peter was married, and travelled
   with his wife as a missionary. Paul assumes one marriage of the clergy
   as the rule, and notwithstanding his personal and relative preference
   for celibacy in the then oppressed condition of the church, he is the
   most zealous advocate of evangelical freedom, in opposition to all
   legal bondage and anxious asceticism.

   Monasticism, therefore, in any case, is not the normal form of
   Christian piety. It is an abnormal phenomenon, a humanly devised
   service of God, [283] and not rarely a sad enervation and repulsive
   distortion of the Christianity of the Bible. And it is to be estimated,
   therefore, not by the extent of its self-denial, not by its outward
   acts of self-discipline (which may all be found in heathenism, Judaism,
   and Mohammedanism as well), but by the Christian spirit of humility and
   love which animated it. For humility is the groundwork, and love the
   all-ruling principle, of the Christian life, and the distinctive
   characteristic of the Christian religion. Without love to God and
   charity to man, the severest self-punishment and the utmost abandonment
   of the world are worthless before God. [284]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [281] So Jerome, Ep. 49 (ed. Ben.), ad Paulinum, where he adduces,
   besides Elijah and John, Isaiah also and the sons of the prophets, as
   the fathers of monasticism; and in his Vita Pauli, where, however, he
   more correctly designates Paul of Thebes and Anthonyas the first
   hermits, properly so called, in distinction from the prophets. Comp.
   also Sozomen: H. E., 1. i. c. 12: Tautes de tes aristes philosophias
   erxato, oHus tines legousin, Helias ho prophetes kai Ioannes ho
   baptistes. This appeal to the example of Elijah and John the Baptist
   has become traditional with Catholic writers on the subject. Alban
   Butler says, under Jan. 15, in the life of Paul of Thebes: "Elias and
   John the Baptist sanctified the deserts, and Jesus Christ himself was a
   model of the eremitical state during his forty days' fast in the
   wilderness; neither is it to be questioned but the Holy Ghost conducted
   the saint of this day (Paul of Thebes) into the desert, and was to him
   an instructor there."

   [282] Hence called consilia evangelica, in distinction from mandata
   divina; after 1 Cor. vii. 25, where Paul does certainly make a similar
   distinction. The consilium and votum paupertatis is based on Matt. xix.
   21; the votum castitatis, on 1 Cor. vii. 8, 25, 38-40. For the votum
   obedientiae no particular text is quoted. The theory appears
   substantially as early as in Origen, and was in him not merely a
   personal opinion, but the reflex of a very widely spread practice.
   Comp. vol. i. § 94 and 95.

   [283] Comp. Col. ii. 16-23.

   [284] Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3. Comp. p. 168 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 32. Lights and Shades of Monastic Life.

   The contrast between pure and normal Bible-Christianity and abnormal
   Monastic Christianity, will appear more fully if we enter into a close
   examination of the latter as it actually appeared in the ancient
   church.

   The extraordinary rapidity with which this world-forsaking form of
   piety spread, bears witness to a high degree of self-denying moral
   earnestness, which even in its mistakes and vagrancies we must admire.
   Our age, accustomed and wedded to all possible comforts, but far in
   advance of the Nicene age in respect to the average morality of the
   masses, could beget no such ascetic extremes. In our estimate of the
   diffusion and value of monasticism, the polluting power of the theatre,
   oppressive taxation, slavery, the multitude of civil wars, and the
   hopeless condition of the Roman empire, must all come into view. Nor
   must we, by any means, measure the moral importance of this phenomenon
   by numbers. Monasticism from the beginning attracted persons of
   opposite character and from opposite motives. Moral earnestness and
   religious enthusiasm were accompanied here, as formerly in martyrdom,
   though even in larger measure than there, with all kinds of sinister
   motives; indolence, discontent, weariness of life, misanthropy,
   ambition for spiritual distinction, and every sort of misfortune or
   accidental circumstance. Palladius, to mention but one illustrious
   example, tells of Paul the Simple, [285] that, from indignation against
   his wife, whom he detected in an act of infidelity, he hastened, with
   the current oath of that day, "in the name of Jesus," [286] into the
   wilderness; and immediately, though now sixty years old, under the
   direction of Anthony, he became a very model monk, and attained an
   astonishing degree of humility, simplicity, and perfect submission of
   will.

   In view of these different motives we need not be surprised that the
   moral character of the monks varied greatly, and presents opposite
   extremes. Augustine says he found among the monks and nuns the best and
   the worst of mankind.

   Looking more closely, in the first place, at anchoretism, we meet in
   its history unquestionably many a heroic character, who attained an
   incredible mastery over his sensual nature, and, like the Old Testament
   prophets and John the Baptist, by their mere appearance and their
   occasional preaching, made an overwhelming impression on his
   contemporaries, even among the heathen. St. Anthony's visit to
   Alexandria was to the gazing multitude like the visit of a messenger
   from the other world, and resulted in many conversions. His emaciated
   face, the glare of his eye, his spectral yet venerable form, his
   contempt of the world, and his few aphoristic sentences told more
   powerfully on that age and people than a most elaborate sermon. St.
   Symeon, standing on a column from year to year, fasting, praying, and
   exhorting the visitors to repentance, was to his generation a standing
   miracle and a sign that pointed them to heaven. Sometimes, in seasons
   of public calamity, such hermits saved whole cities and provinces from
   the imperial wrath, by their effectual intercessions. When Theodosius,
   in 387, was about to destroy Antioch for a sedition, the hermit
   Macedonius met the two imperial commissaries, who reverently dismounted
   and kissed his hands and feet; he reminded them and the emperor of
   their own weakness, set before them the value of men as immortal images
   of God, in comparison with the perishable statues of the emperor, and
   thus saved the city from demolition. [287] The heroism of the
   anchoretic life, in the voluntary renunciation of lawful pleasures and
   the patient endurance of self-inflicted pains, is worthy of admiration
   in its way, and not rarely almost incredible.

   But this moral heroism--and these are the weak points of it--oversteps
   not only the present standard of Christianity, but all sound measure;
   it has no support either in the theory or the practice of Christ and
   the apostolic church; and it has far more resemblance to heathen than
   to biblical precedents. Many of the most eminent saints of the desert
   differ only in their Christian confession, and in some Bible phrases
   learnt by rote, from Buddhist fakirs and Mohammedan dervises. Their
   highest virtuousness consisted in bodily exercises of their own
   devising, which, without love, at best profit nothing at all, very
   often only gratify spiritual vanity, and entirely obscure the gospel
   way of salvation.

   To illustrate this by a few examples, we may choose any of the most
   celebrated eastern anchorets of the fourth and fifth centuries, as
   reported by the most credible contemporaries.

   The holy Scriptures instruct us to pray and to labor; and to pray not
   only mechanically with the lips, as the heathen do, but with all the
   heart. But Paul the Simple said daily three hundred prayers, counting
   them with pebbles, which he carried in his bosom (a sort of rosary);
   when he heard of a virgin who prayed seven hundred times a day, he was
   troubled, and told his distress to Macarius, who well answered him:
   "Either thou prayest not with thy heart, if thy conscience reproves
   thee, or thou couldst pray oftener. I have for six years prayed only a
   hundred times a day, without being obliged to condemn myself for
   neglect." Christ ate and drank like other men, expressly distinguishing
   himself thereby from John, the representative of the old covenant; and
   Paul recommends to us to use the gifts of God temperately, with
   cheerful and childlike gratitude. [288] But the renowned anchoret and
   presbyter Isidore of Alexandria (whom Athanasius ordained) touched no
   meat, never ate enough, and, as Palladius relates, often burst into
   tears at table for shame, that he, who was destined to eat angels' food
   in paradise, should have to eat material stuff like the irrational
   brutes. Macarius the elder, or the Great, for a long time ate only once
   a week, and slept standing and leaning on a staff. The equally
   celebrated younger Macarius lived three years on four or five ounces of
   bread a day, and seven years on raw herbs and pulse. Ptolemy spent
   three years alone in an unwatered desert, and quenched his thirst with
   the dew, which he collected in December and January, and preserved in
   earthen vessels; but he fell at last into skepticism, madness, and
   debauchery. [289] Sozomen tells of a certain Batthaeus, that by reason
   of his extreme abstinence, worms crawled out of his teeth; of Alas,
   that to his eightieth year he never ate bread; of Heliodorus, that he
   spent many nights without sleep, and fasted without interruption seven
   days. [290] Symeon, a Christian Diogenes, spent six and thirty years
   praying, fasting, and preaching, on the top of a pillar thirty or forty
   feet high, ate only once a week, and in fast times not at all. Such
   heroism of abstinence was possible, however, only in the torrid climate
   of the East, and is not to be met with in the West.

   Anchoretism almost always carries a certain cynic roughness and
   coarseness, which, indeed, in the light of that age, may be leniently
   judged, but certainly have no affinity with the morality of the Bible,
   and offend not only good taste, but all sound moral feeling. The
   ascetic holiness, at least according to the Egyptian idea, is
   incompatible with cleanliness and decency, and delights in filth. It
   reverses the maxim of sound evangelical morality and modern Christian
   civilization, that cleanliness is next to godliness. Saints Anthony and
   Hilarion, as their admirers, Athanasius the Great and Jerome the
   Learned, tell us, scorned to comb or cut their hair (save once a year,
   at Easter), or to wash their hands or feet. Other hermits went almost
   naked in the wilderness, like the Indian gymnosophists. [291] The
   younger Macarius, according to the account of his disciple Palladius,
   once lay six months naked in the morass of the Scetic desert, and thus
   exposed himself to the incessant attacks of the gnats of Africa, "whose
   sting can pierce even the hide of a wild boar." He wished to punish
   himself for his arbitrary revenge on a gnat, and was there so badly
   stung by gnats and wasps, that he was thought to be smitten with
   leprosy, and was recognized only by his voice. [292] St. Symeon the
   Stylite, according to Theodoret, suffered himself to be incessantly
   tormented for a long time by twenty enormous bugs, and concealed an
   abscess full of worms, to exercise himself in patience and meekness. In
   Mesopotamia there was a peculiar class of anchorets, who lived on
   grass, spending the greater part of the day in prayer and singing, and
   then turning out like beasts upon the mountain. [293] Theodoret relates
   of the much lauded Akepsismas, in Cyprus, that he spent sixty years in
   the same cell, without seeing or speaking to any one, and looked so
   wild and shaggy, that he was once actually taken for a wolf by a
   shepherd, who assailed him with stones, till he discovered his error,
   and then worshipped the hermit as a saint. [294] It was but a step from
   this kind of moral sublimity to beastly degradation. Many of these
   saints were no more than low sluggards or gloomy misanthropes, who
   would rather company with wild beasts, with lions, wolves, and hyenas,
   than with immortal men, and above all shunned the face of a woman more
   carefully than they did the devil. Sulpitius Severus saw an anchoret in
   the Thebaid, who daily shared his evening meal with a female wolf; and
   upon her discontinuing her visits for some days by way of penance for a
   theft she had committed, he besought her to come again, and comforted
   her with a double portion of bread. [295] The same writer tells of a
   hermit who lived fifty years secluded from all human society, in the
   clefts of Mount Sinai, entirely destitute of clothing, and all
   overgrown with thick hair, avoiding every visitor, because, as he said,
   intercourse with men interrupted the visits of the angels; whence arose
   the report that he held intercourse with angels. [296]

   It is no recommendation to these ascetic eccentricities that while they
   are without Scripture authority, they are fully equalled and even
   surpassed by the strange modes of self-torture practised by ancient and
   modern Hindoo devotees, for the supposed benefit of their souls and the
   gratification of their vanity in the presence of admiring spectators.
   Some bury themselves--we are told by ancient and modern travellers--in
   pits with only small breathing holes at the top, while others
   disdaining to touch the vile earth, live in iron cages suspended from
   trees. Some wear heavy iron collars or fetters, or drag a heavy chain
   fastened by one end round their privy parts, to give ostentatious proof
   of their chastity. Others keep their fists hard shut, until their
   finger nails grow through the palms of their hands. Some stand
   perpetually on one leg; others keep their faces turned over one
   shoulder, until they cannot turn them back again. Some lie on wooden
   beds, bristling all over with iron spikes; others are fastened for life
   to the trunk of a tree by a chain. Some suspend themselves for half an
   hour at a time, feet uppermost, or with a hook thrust through their
   naked back, over a hot fire. Alexander von Humboldt, at Astracan, where
   some Hindoos had settled, found a Yogi in the vestibule of the temple
   naked, shrivelled up, and overgrown with hair like a wild beast, who in
   this position had withstood for twenty years the severe winters of that
   climate. A Jesuit missionary describes one of the class called
   Tapasonias, that he had his body enclosed in an iron cage, with his
   head and feet outside, so that he could walk, but neither sit nor lie
   down; at night his pious attendants attached a hundred lighted lamps to
   the outside of the cage, so that their master could exhibit himself
   walking as the mock light of the world. [297]

   In general, the hermit life confounds the fleeing from the outward
   world with the mortification of the inward world of the corrupt heart.
   It mistakes the duty of love; not rarely, under its mask of humility
   and the utmost self-denial, cherishes spiritual pride and jealousy; and
   exposes itself to all the dangers of solitude, even to savage
   barbarism, beastly grossness, or despair and suicide. Anthony, the
   father of anchorets, well understood this, and warned his followers
   against overvaluing solitude, reminding them of the proverb of the
   Preacher, iv. 10: "Woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he
   hath not another to help him up."

   The cloister life was less exposed to these errors. It approached the
   life of society and civilization. Yet, on the other hand, it produced
   no such heroic phenomena, and had dangers peculiar to itself.
   Chrysostom gives us the bright side of it from his own experience.
   "Before the rising of the sun," says he of the monks of Antioch, "they
   rise, hale and sober, sing as with one mouth hymns to the praise of
   God, then bow the knee in prayer, under the direction of the abbot,
   read the holy Scriptures, and go to their labors; pray again at nine,
   twelve, and three o'clock; after a good day's work, enjoy a simple meal
   of bread and salt, perhaps with oil, and sometimes with pulse; sing a
   thanksgiving hymn, and lay themselves on their pallets of straw without
   care, grief, or murmur. When one dies, they say: 'He is perfected;' and
   all pray God for a like end, that they also may come to the eternal
   sabbath-rest and to the vision of Christ." Men like Chrysostom, Basil,
   Gregory, Jerome, Nilus, and Isidore, united theological studies with
   the ascetic exercises of solitude, and thus gained a copious knowledge
   of Scripture and a large spiritual experience.

   But most of the monks either could not even read, or had too little
   intellectual culture to devote themselves with advantage to
   contemplation and study, and only brooded over gloomy feelings, or
   sank, in spite of the unsensual tendency of the ascetic principle, into
   the coarsest anthropomorphism and image worship. When the religious
   enthusiasm faltered or ceased, the cloister life, like the hermit life,
   became the most spiritless and tedious routine, or hypocritically
   practised secret vices. For the monks carried with them into their
   solitude their most dangerous enemy in their hearts, and there often
   endured much fiercer conflicts with flesh and blood, than amidst the
   society of men.

   The temptations of sensuality, pride, and ambition externalized and
   personified themselves to the anchorets and monks in hellish shapes,
   which appeared in visions and dreams, now in pleasing and seductive,
   now in threatening and terrible forms and colors, according to the
   state of mind at the time. The monastic imagination peopled the deserts
   and solitudes with the very worst society, with swarms of winged demons
   and all kinds of hellish monsters. [298] It substituted thus a new kind
   of polytheism for the heathen gods, which were generally supposed to be
   evil spirits. The monastic demonology and demonomachy is a strange
   mixture of gross superstitions and deep spiritual experiences. It forms
   the romantic shady side of the otherwise so tedious monotony of the
   secluded life, and contains much material for the history of ethics,
   psychology, and pathology.

   Especially besetting were the temptations of sensuality, and
   irresistible without the utmost exertion and constant watchfulness. The
   same saints, who could not conceive of true chastity without celibacy,
   were disturbed, according to their own confession, by unchaste dreams,
   which at least defiled the imagination. [299] Excessive asceticism
   sometimes turned into unnatural vice; sometimes ended in madness,
   despair, and suicide. Pachomius tells us, so early as his day, that
   many monks cast themselves down precipices, others ripped themselves
   up, and others put themselves to death in other ways. [300]

   A characteristic trait of monasticism in all its forms is a morbid
   aversion to female society and a rude contempt of married life. No
   wonder, then, that in Egypt and the whole East, the land of
   monasticism, women and domestic life never attained their proper
   dignity, and to this day remain at a very low stage of culture. Among
   the rules of Basil is a prohibition of speaking with a woman, touching
   one, or even looking on one, except in unavoidable cases. Monasticism
   not seldom sundered the sacred bond between husband and wife, commonly
   with mutual consent, as in the cases of Ammon and Nilus, but often even
   without it. Indeed, a law of Justinian seems to give either party an
   unconditional right of desertion, while yet the word of God declares
   the marriage bond indissoluble. The Council of Gangra found it
   necessary to oppose the notion that marriage is inconsistent with
   salvation, and to exhort wives to remain with their husbands. In the
   same way monasticism came into conflict with love of kindred, and with
   the relation of parents to children; misinterpreting the Lord's command
   to leave all for His sake. Nilus demanded of the monks the entire
   suppression of the sense of blood relationship. St. Anthony forsook his
   younger sister, and saw her only once after the separation. His
   disciple, Prior, when he became a monk, vowed never to see his kindred
   again, and would not even speak with his sister without closing his
   eyes. Something of the same sort is recorded of Pachomius. Ambrose and
   Jerome, in full earnest, enjoined upon virgins the cloister life, even
   against the will of their parents. When Hilary of Poictiers heard that
   his daughter wished to marry, he is said to have prayed God to take her
   to himself by death. One Mucius, without any provocation, caused his
   own son to be cruelly abused, and at last, at the command of the abbot
   himself, cast him into the water, whence he was rescued by a brother of
   the cloister. [301]

   Even in the most favorable case monasticism falls short of harmonious
   moral development, and of that symmetry of virtue which meets us in
   perfection in Christ, and next to him in the apostles. It lacks the
   finer and gentler traits of character, which are ordinarily brought out
   only in the school of daily family life and under the social ordinances
   of God. Its morality is rather negative than positive. There is more
   virtue in the temperate and thankful enjoyment of the gifts of God,
   than in total abstinence; in charitable and well-seasoned speech, than
   in total silence; in connubial chastity, than in celibacy; in
   self-denying practical labor for the church. than in solitary
   asceticism, which only pleases self and profits no one else.

   Catholicism, whether Greek or Roman, cannot dispense with the monastic
   life. It knows only moral extremes, nothing of the healthful mean. In
   addition to this, popery needs the monastic orders, as an absolute
   monarchy needs large standing armies both for conquest and defence. But
   evangelical Protestantism, rejecting all distinction of a twofold
   morality, assigning to all men the same great duty under the law of
   God, placing the essence of religion not in outward exercises, but in
   the heart, not in separation from the world and from society, but in
   purifying and sanctifying the world by the free spirit of the gospel,
   is death to the great monastic institution.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [285] Aplastos, lit. not moulded; hence natural, sincere.

   [286] Ma ton Iesoun (per Christum, in Salvian), which now took the
   place of the pagan oath: ma ton Dia, by Jupiter.

   [287] In Theodoret: Hist. relig. c. (vita) 13.

   [288] Comp. Matt. xi. 18, 19; 1 Tim. iv. 3-5.

   [289] Comp. Hist. Laus. c. 33 and 95.

   [290] Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 34.

   [291] These latter themselves were not absolutely naked, but wore a
   covering over the middle, as Augustine, in the passage above cited, De
   Civit. Dei, l. xiv. c. 17, and later tourists tell us. On the contrary,
   there were monks who were very scrupulous on this point. It is said of
   Ammon, that he never saw himself naked. The monks in Tabennae,
   according to the rule of Pachomius, had to sleep always in their
   clothes.

   [292] Comp. Hist Lausiaca, c. 20, and Tillemont, tom. viii. p. 633.

   [293] The boskoi or pabulatores. Comp. Sozom. H. E. l. vi. 33. Ephraim
   Syrus delivered a special eulogy on them, cited in Tillemont, Mem. tom.
   viii. p. 292 sq.

   [294] Hist. Rel. cap. (vita) xv. (Opera omnia, ed Par. iii. 843 sqq.).

   [295] Dial. i. c. 8. Severus sees in this a wonderful example of the
   power of Christ over wild beasts.

   [296] L. c. i. c 11.

   [297] See Ruffner, l.c. i. 49 sqq., and Wuttke, l.c. p. 369 sqq.

   [298] According to a sensuous and local conception of Eph. vi. 12; Ta
   pneumatika tes ponerias en tois epouraniois ; "die bösen Geister unter
   dem Himmel" (evil spirits under heaven), as Luther translates; while
   the Vulgate gives it literally, but somewhat obscurely: "Spiritualia
   nequitiae in coelestibus;" and the English Bible quite too freely:
   "Spiritual wickedness in high places." In any case pneumatika is to be
   taken in a much wider sense than pneumata or daimonia; and epourania,
   also, is not fully identical with the cloud heaven or the atmosphere,
   and besides admits a different construction, so that many put a comma
   after ponerias. The monastic satanology and demonology, we may remark,
   was universally received in the ancient church and throughout the
   middle ages. And it is well known that Luther retained from his
   monastic life a sensuous, materialistic idea of the devil and of his
   influence on men.

   [299] Athanasius says of St. Anthony, that the devil sometimes appeared
   to him in the form of a woman; Jerome relates of St. Hilarion, that in
   bed his imagination was often beset with visions of naked women. Jerome
   himself acknowledges, in a letter to a virgin (!), Epist. xxii. (ed.
   Vallars. t. i. p. 91, 92), de Custodia Virginitatis, ad Eustochium: "O
   quoties ego ipse in eremo constitutus et in illa vasta solitudine, quae
   exusta solis ardoribus horridum monachis praebebat habitaculum, putavi
   me Romanis interesse deliciis .... Ille igitur ego, qui ob gehennae
   metum tali me carcere ipse damnaveram, scorpionum tantum socius et
   ferarum, saepe choris intereram puellarum. Pallebant ora jejuniis, et
   mens desideriis aestuabat in frigido corpore, et ante hominem suum jam
   in carne praemortuum, sola libidinum incendia bulliebant. Itaque omni
   auxilio destitutus, ad Jesu jacebam pedes, rigabam lacrymis, crine
   tergebam et repugnantem carnem hebdomadarum inedia subjugabam." St.
   Ephraim warns against listening to the enemy, who whispers to the monk:
   Ou dunaton pausasthei apo sou, ean me plerophoreses epithumian sou.

   [300] Vita Pach. § 61. Comp. Nilus, Epist. l. ii. p. 140: Tines...
   heautous esphaxan machaira etc. Even among the fanatical
   Circumcelliones, Donatist medicant monks in Africa, suicide was not
   uncommon.

   [301] Tillem. vii. 430. The abbot thereupon, as Tillemont relates, was
   informed by a revelation, "que Muce avait egalé par son obeissance
   celle d'Abraham," and soon after made him his successor.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 33. Position of Monks in the Church.

   As to the social position of monasticism in the system of
   ecclesiastical life: it was at first, in East and West, even so late as
   the council of Chalcedon, regarded as a lay institution; but the monks
   were distinguished as religiosi from the seculares, and formed thus a
   middle grade between the ordinary laity and the clergy. They
   constituted the spiritual nobility, but not the ruling class; the
   aristocracy, but not the hierarchy of the church. "A monk," says
   Jerome, "has not the office of a teacher, but of a penitent, who
   endures suffering either for himself or for the world." Many monks
   considered ecclesiastical office incompatible with their effort after
   perfection. It was a proverb, traced to Pachomius: "A monk should
   especially shun women and bishops, for neither will let him have
   peace." [302] Ammonius, who accompanied Athanasius to Rome, cut off his
   own ear, and threatened to cut out his own tongue, when it was proposed
   to make him a bishop. [303] Martin of Tours thought his miraculous
   power deserted him on his transition from the cloister to the
   bishopric. Others, on the contrary, were ambitious for the episcopal
   chair, or were promoted to it against their will, as early as the
   fourth century. The abbots of monasteries were usually ordained
   priests, and administered the sacraments among the brethren, but were
   subject to the bishop of the diocese. Subsequently the cloisters
   managed, through special papal grants, to make themselves independent
   of the episcopal jurisdiction. From the tenth century the clerical
   character was attached to the monks. In a certain sense, they stood,
   from the beginning, even above the clergy; considered themselves
   preëminently conversi and religiosi, and their life vita religiosa;
   looked down with contempt upon the secular clergy; and often encroached
   on their province in troublesome ways. On the other hand, the cloisters
   began, as early as the fourth century, to be most fruitful seminaries
   of clergy, and furnished, especially in the East, by far the greater
   number of bishops. The sixth novel of Justinian provides that the
   bishops shall be chosen from the clergy, or from the monastery.

   In dress, the monks at first adhered to the costume of the country, but
   chose the simplest and coarsest material. Subsequently, they adopted
   the tonsure and a distinctive uniform.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [302] Omnino monachum fugere debere mulieres et episcopos.

   [303] Sozom. iv. 30.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 34. Influence and Effect of Monasticism.

   The influence of monasticism upon the world, from Anthony and Benedict
   to Luther and Loyola, is deeply marked in all branches of the history
   of the church. Here, too, we must distinguish light and shade. The
   operation of the monastic institution has been to some extent of
   diametrically opposite kinds, and has accordingly elicited the most
   diverse judgments. "It is impossible," says Dean Milman, [304] "to
   survey monachism in its general influence, from the earliest period of
   its inworking into Christianity, without being astonished and perplexed
   with its diametrically opposite effects. Here it is the undoubted
   parent of the blindest ignorance and the most ferocious bigotry,
   sometimes of the most debasing licentiousness; there the guardian of
   learning, the author of civilization, the propagator of humble and
   peaceful religion." The apparent contradiction is easily solved. It is
   not monasticism, as such, which has proved a blessing to the church and
   the world; for the monasticism of India, which for three thousand years
   has pushed the practice of mortification to all the excesses of
   delirium, never saved a single soul, nor produced a single benefit to
   the race. It was Christianity in monasticism which has done all the
   good, and used this abnormal mode of life as a means for carrying
   forward its mission of love and peace. In proportion as monasticism was
   animated and controlled by the spirit of Christianity, it proved a
   blessing; while separated from it, it degenerated and became at
   fruitful source of evil.

   At the time of its origin, when we can view it from the most favorable
   point, the monastic life formed a healthful and necessary counterpart
   to the essentially corrupt and doomed social life of the Graeco-Roman
   empire, and the preparatory school of a new Christian civilization
   among the Romanic and Germanic nations of the middle age. Like the
   hierarchy and the papacy, it belongs with the disciplinary
   institutions, which the spirit of Christianity uses as means to a
   higher end, and, after attaining that end, casts aside. For it ever
   remains the great problem of Christianity to pervade like leaven and
   sanctify all human society in the family and the state, in science and
   art, and in all public life. The old Roman world, which was based on
   heathenism, was, if the moral portraitures of Salvianus and other
   writers of the fourth and fifth centuries are even half true, past all
   such transformation; and the Christian morality therefore assumed at
   the outset an attitude of downright hostility toward it, till she
   should grow strong enough to venture upon her regenerating mission
   among the new and, though barbarous, yet plastic and germinal nations
   of the middle age, and plant in them the seed of a higher civilization.

   Monasticism promoted the downfall of heathenism and the victory of
   Christianity in the Roman empire and among the barbarians. It stood as
   a warning against the worldliness, frivolity, and immorality of the
   great cities, and a mighty call to repentance and conversion. It
   offered a quiet refuge to souls weary of the world, and led its earnest
   disciples into the sanctuary of undisturbed communion with God. It was
   to invalids a hospital for the cure of moral diseases, and at the same
   time, to healthy and vigorous enthusiasts an arena for the exercise of
   heroic virtue. [305] It recalled the original unity and equality of the
   human race, by placing rich and poor, high and low upon the same level.
   It conduced to the abolition, or at least the mitigation of slavery.
   [306] It showed hospitality to the wayfaring, and liberality to the
   poor and needy. It was an excellent school of meditation,
   self-discipline, and spiritual exercise. It sent forth most of those
   catholic, missionaries, who, inured to all hardship, planted the
   standard of the cross among the barbarian tribes of Northern and
   Western Europe, and afterward in Eastern Asia and South America. It was
   a prolific seminary of the clergy, and gave the church many of her most
   eminent bishops and popes, as Gregory I. and Gregory VII. It produced
   saints like Anthony and Bernard, and trained divines like Chrysostom
   and Jerome, and the long succession of schoolmen and mystics of the
   middle ages. Some of the profoundest theological discussions, like the
   tracts of Anselm, and the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, and not a few of the
   best books of devotion, like the "Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a
   Kempis, have proceeded from the solemn quietude of cloister life.
   Sacred hymns, unsurpassed for sweetness, like the Jesu dulcis memoria,
   or tender emotion, like the Stabat mater dolorosa, or terrific
   grandeur, like the Dies irae, dies illa, were conceived and sung by
   mediaeval monks for all ages to come. In patristic and antiquarian
   learning the Benedictines, so lately as the seventeenth century, have
   done extraordinary service. Finally, monasticism, at least in the West,
   promoted the cultivation of the soil and the education of the people,
   and by its industrious transcriptions of the Bible, the works of the
   church fathers, and the ancient classics, earned for itself, before the
   Reformation, much of the credit of the modern civilization of Europe.
   The traveller in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, and even in
   the northern regions of Scotland and Sweden, encounters innumerable
   traces of useful monastic labors in the ruins of abbeys, of chapter
   houses, of convents, of priories and hermitages, from which once
   proceeded educational and missionary influences upon the surrounding
   hills and forests. These offices, however, to the progress of arts and
   letters were only accessory, often involuntary, and altogether foreign
   to the intention of the founders of monastic life and institutions, who
   looked exclusively to the religious and moral education of the soul. In
   seeking first the kingdom of heaven, these other things were added to
   them.

   But on the other hand, monasticism withdrew from society many useful
   forces; diffused an indifference for the family life, the civil and
   military service of the state, and all public practical operations;
   turned the channels of religion from the world into the desert, and so
   hastened the decline of Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and the whole Roman
   empire. It nourished religious fanaticism, often raised storms of
   popular agitation, and rushed passionately into the controversies of
   theological parties; generally, it is true, on the side of orthodoxy,
   but often, as at the Ephesian "council of robbers," in favor of heresy,
   and especially in behalf of the crudest superstition. For the simple,
   divine way of salvation in the gospel, it substituted an arbitrary,
   eccentric, ostentatious, and pretentious sanctity. It darkened the
   all-sufficient merits of Christ by the glitter of the over-meritorious
   works of man. It measured virtue by the quantity of outward exercises
   instead of the quality of the inward disposition, and disseminated
   self-righteousness and an anxious, legal, and mechanical religion. It
   favored the idolatrous veneration of Mary and of saints, the worship of
   images and relics, and all sorts of superstitious and pious fraud. It
   circulated a mass of visions and miracles, which, if true, far
   surpassed the miracles of Christ and the apostles and set all the laws
   of nature and reason at defiance. The Nicene age is full of the most
   absurd monks' fables, and is in this respect not a whit behind the
   darkest of the middle ages. [307] Monasticism lowered the standard of
   general morality in proportion as it set itself above it and claimed a
   corresponding higher merit; and it exerted in general a demoralizing
   influence on the people, who came to consider themselves the profanum
   vulgus mundi, and to live accordingly. Hence the frequent lamentations,
   not only of Salvian, but of Chrysostom and of Augustine, over the
   indifference and laxness of the Christianity of the day; hence to this
   day the mournful state of things in the southern countries of Europe
   and America, where monasticism is most prevalent, and sets the extreme
   of ascetic sanctity in contrast with the profane laity, but where there
   exists no healthful middle class of morality, no blooming family life,
   no moral vigor in the masses. In the sixteenth century the monks were
   the bitterest enemies of the Reformation and of all true progress. And
   yet the greatest of the reformers was a pupil of the convent, and a
   child of the monastic system, as the boldest and most free of the
   apostles had been the strictest of the Pharisees.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [304] Hist. of (ancient) Christianity, Am. ed., p. 432.

   [305] Chateaubriand commends the monastic institution mainly under the
   first view. "If there are refuges for the health of the body, ah !
   permit religion to have such also for the health of the soul, which is
   still more subject to sickness, and the infirmities of which are so
   much more sad, so much more tedious and difficult to cure!"
   Montalembert (l.c. i. 25) objects to this view as poetic and touching
   but false, and represents monasticism as an arena for the healthiest
   and strongest souls which the world has ever produced, and quotes the
   passage of Chrysostom: "Come and see the tents of the soldiers of
   Christ; come and see their order of battle; they fight every day, and
   every day they defeat and immolate the passions which assail us."

   [306] 1 The abbot Isidore of Pelusium wrote to a slaveholder, Ep. l. i.
   142 (cited by Neander): "I did not think that the man who loves Christ,
   and knows the grace which makes us all free, would still hold slaves."

   [307] The monkish miracles, with which the Vitae Patrum of the Jesuit
   Rosweyde and the Acta Sanctorum swarm, often contradict all the laws of
   nature and of reason, and would be hardly worthy of mention, but that
   they come from such fathers as Jerome, Rufinus, Severus, Palladius, and
   Theodoret, and go to characterize the Nicene age. We are far from
   rejecting all and every one as falsehood and deception, and accepting
   the judgment of Isaac Taylor (Ancient Christianity, ii. 106): "The
   Nicene miracles are of a kind which shocks every sentiment of gravity,
   of decency, and of piety:--in their obvious features they are childish,
   horrid, blasphemous, and foul." Much more cautious is the opinion of
   Robertson (Hist. of the Christian Church, i. 312) and other Protestant
   historians, who suppose that, together with the innocent illusions of a
   heated imagination and the fabrications of intentional fraud, there
   must have been also much that was real, though in the nature of the
   case an exact sifting is impossible. But many of these stories are too
   much even for Roman credulity, and are either entirely omitted or at
   least greatly reduced and modified by critical historians. We read not
   only of innumerable visions, prophecies, healings of the sick and the
   possessed, but also of raising of the dead (as in the life of Martin of
   Tours), of the growth of a dry stick into a fruitful tree, and of a
   monk's passing unseared, in absolute obedience to his abbot, through a
   furnace of fire as through a cooling bath. (Comp. Sulp. Sever. Dial. i.
   c. 12 and 13.) Even wild beasts play a large part, and are transformed
   into rational servants of the Egyptian saints of the desert. At the
   funeral of Paul of Thebes, according to Jerome, two lions voluntarily
   performed the office of sexton. Pachomius walked unharmed over serpents
   and scorpions, and crossed the Nile on crocodiles, which, of their own
   accord, presented their backs. The younger Macarius, or (according to
   other statements of the Historia Lausiaca; comp. the investigation of
   Tillemont, tom. viii. p. 811 sqq.) the monk Marcus stood on so good
   terms with the beasts, that a hyena (according to Rufinus, V. P. ii. 4,
   it was a lioness) brought her young one to him in his cell, that he
   might open its eyes; which he did by prayer and application of spittle;
   and the next day she offered him, for gratitude, a large sheepskin; the
   saint at first declined the gift, and reproved the beast for the double
   crime of murder and theft, by which she had obtained the skin; but when
   the hyena showed repentance, and with a nod promised amendment,
   Macarius took the skin, and afterward bequeathed it to the great bishop
   Athanasius. Severus (Dial. i. c. 9) gives a very similar account of an
   unknown anchoret, but, like Rufinus, substitutes for the hyena of
   Palladius a lioness with five whelps, and makes the saint receive the
   present of the skin without scruple or reproof. Shortly before (c. 8),
   he speaks, however, of a wolf, which once robbed a friendly hermit,
   whose evening meal she was accustomed to share, showed deep repentance
   for it, and with bowed head begged forgiveness of the saint. Perhaps
   Palladius or his Latin translator has combined these two anecdotes.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 35. Paul of Thebes and St. Anthony.

   I. Athanasius: Vita S. Antonii (in Greek, Opera, ed. Ben. ii. 793-866).
   The same in Latin, by Evagrius, in the fourth century. Jerome: Catal.
   c. 88 (a very brief notice of Anthony); Vita S. Pauli Theb. (Opera, ed.
   Vallars, ii. p. 1-12). Sozom: H. E. l. i. cap. 13 and 14. Socrat.: H.
   E. iv. 23, 25.

   II. Acta Sanctorum, sub Jan. 17 (tom. ii. p. 107 sqq.). Tillemont: Mem.
   tom. vii. p. 101-144 (St. Antoine, premier père des solitaires
   d'Egypte). Butler (R.C.): Lives of the Saints, sub Jan. 17. Möhler
   (R.C.): Athanasius der Grosse, p. 382-402. Neander: K. G. iii. 446 sqq.
   (Torrey's Engl. ed. ii. 229-234). Böhringer: Die Kirche Christi in
   Biographien, i. 2, p. 122-151. H. Ruffner: l.c. vol. i. p. 247-302 (a
   condensed translation from Athanasius, with additions). K. Hase: K.
   Gesch. § 64 (a masterly miniature portrait).

   The first known Christian hermit, as distinct from the earlier
   ascetics, is the fabulous Paul of Thebes, in Upper Egypt. In the
   twenty-second year of his age, during the Decian persecution, a.d. 250,
   he retired to a distant cave, grew fond of the solitude, and lived
   there, according to the legend, ninety years, in a grotto near a spring
   and a palm tree, which furnished him food, shade, and clothing, [308]
   until his death in 340. In his later years a raven is said to have
   brought him daily half a loaf, as the ravens ministered to Elijah. But
   no one knew of this wonderful saint, till Anthony, who under a higher
   impulse visited and buried him, made him known to the world. After
   knocking in vain for more than an hour at the door of the hermit, who
   would receive the visits of beasts and reject those of men, he was
   admitted at last with a smiling face, and greeted with a holy kiss.
   Paul had sufficient curiosity left to ask the question, whether there
   were any more idolaters in the world, whether new houses were built in
   ancient cities and by whom the world was governed? During this
   interesting conversation, a large raven came gently flying and
   deposited a double portion of bread for the saint and his guest. "The
   Lord," said Paul, "ever kind and merciful, has sent us a dinner. It is
   now sixty years since I have daily received half a loaf, but since thou
   hast come, Christ has doubled the supply for his soldiers." After
   thanking the Giver, they sat down by the fountain; but now the question
   arose who should break the bread; the one urging the custom of
   hospitality, the other pleading the right of his friend as the elder.
   This question of monkish etiquette, which may have a moral
   significance, consumed nearly the whole day, and was settled at last by
   the compromise that both should seize the loaf at opposite ends, pull
   till it broke, and keep what remained in their hands. A drink from the
   fountain, and thanksgiving to God closed the meal. The day afterward
   Anthony returned to his cell, and told his two disciples: "Woe to me, a
   sinner, who have falsely pretended to be a monk. I have seen Elijah and
   John in the desert; I have seen St. Paul in paradise." Soon afterward
   he paid St. Paul a second visit, but found him dead in his cave, with
   head erect and hands lifted up to heaven. He wrapped up the corpse,
   singing psalms and hymns, and buried him without a spade; for two lions
   came of their own accord, or rather from supernatural impulse, from the
   interior parts of the desert, laid down at his feet, wagging their
   tails, and moaning distressingly, and scratched a grave in the sand
   large enough for the body of the departed saint of the desert! Anthony
   returned with the coat of Paul, made of palm leaves, and wore it on the
   solemn days of Easter and Pentecost.

   The learned Jerome wrote the life of Paul, some thirty years afterward,
   as it appears, on the authority of Anathas and Macarius, two disciples
   of Anthony. But he remarks, in the prologue, that many incredible
   things are said of him, which are not worthy of repetition. If he
   believed his story of the grave-digging lions, it is hard to imagine
   what was more credible and less worthy of repetition.

   In this Paul we have an example, of a canonized saint, who lived ninety
   years unseen and unknown in the wilderness, beyond all fellowship with
   the visible church, without Bible, public worship, or sacraments, and
   so died, yet is supposed to have attained the highest grade of piety.
   How does this consist with the common doctrine of the Catholic church
   respecting the necessity and the operation of the means of grace?
   Augustine, blinded by the ascetic spirit of his age, says even, that
   anchorets, on their level of perfection, may dispense with the Bible.
   Certain it is, that this kind of perfection stands not in the Bible,
   but outside of it.

   The proper founder of the hermit life, the one chiefly instrumental in
   giving it its prevalence, was St. Anthony of Egypt. He is the most
   celebrated, the most original, and the most venerable representative of
   this abnormal and eccentric sanctity, the "patriarch of the monks," and
   the "childless father of an innumerable seed." [309]

   Anthony sprang from a Christian and honorable Coptic family, and was
   born about 251, at Coma, on the borders of the Thebaid. Naturally
   quiet, contemplative, and reflective, he avoided the society of
   playmates, and despised all higher learning. He understood only his
   Coptic vernacular, and remained all his life ignorant of Grecian
   literature and secular science. [310] But he diligently attended divine
   worship with his parents, and so carefully heard the Scripture lessons,
   that he retained them in memory. [311] Memory was his library. He
   afterward made faithful, but only too literal use of single passages of
   Scripture, and began his discourse to the hermits with the very
   uncatholic-sounding declaration: "The holy Scriptures give us
   instruction enough." In his eighteenth year, about 270, the death of
   his parents devolved on him the care of a younger sister and a
   considerable estate. Six months afterward he heard in the church, just
   as he was meditating on the apostles' implicit following of Jesus, the
   word of the Lord to the rich young ruler: "If thou wilt be perfect, go
   and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
   treasure in heaven; and come and follow me." [312] This word was a
   voice of God, which determined his life. He divided his real estate,
   consisting of three hundred acres of fertile land, among the
   inhabitants of the village, and sold his personal property for the
   benefit of the poor, excepting a moderate reserve for the support of
   his sister. But when, soon afterward, he heard in the church the
   exhortation, "Take no thought for the morrow," [313] he distributed the
   remnant to the poor, and intrusted his sister to a society of pious
   virgins. [314] He visited her only once after--a fact characteristic of
   the ascetic depreciation of natural ties.

   He then forsook the hamlet, and led an ascetic life in the
   neighborhood, praying constantly, according to the exhortation: "Pray
   without ceasing;" and also laboring, according to the maxim: "If any
   will not work, neither should he eat." What he did not need for his
   slender support, he gave to the poor. He visited the neighboring
   ascetics, who were then already very plentiful in Egypt, to learn
   humbly and thankfully their several eminent virtues; from one,
   earnestness in prayer; from another, watchfulness; from a third,
   excellence in fasting; from a fourth, meekness; from all, love to
   Christ and to fellow men. Thus he made himself universally beloved, and
   came to be reverenced as a friend of God.

   But to reach a still higher level of ascetic holiness, he retreated,
   after the year 285, further and further from the bosom and vicinity of
   the church, into solitude, and thus became the founder of an
   anchoretism strictly so called. At first he lived in a sepulchre; then
   for twenty years in the ruins of a castle; and last on Mount Colzim,
   some seven hours from the Red Sea, a three days' journey east of the
   Nile, where an old cloister still preserves his name and memory.

   In this solitude he prosecuted his ascetic practices with
   ever-increasing rigor. Their monotony was broken only by basket making,
   occasional visits, and battles with the devil. In fasting he attained a
   rare abstemiousness. His food consisted of bread and salt, sometimes
   dates; his drink, of water. Flesh and wine he never touched. He ate
   only once a day, generally after sunset, and, like the presbyter
   Isidore, was ashamed that an immortal spirit should need earthly
   nourishment. Often he fasted from two to five days. Friends, and
   wandering Saracens, who always had a certain reverence for the saints
   of the desert, brought him bread from time to time. But in the last
   years of his life, to render himself entirely independent of others,
   and to afford hospitality to travellers, he cultivated a small garden
   on the mountain, near a spring shaded by palms. [315] Sometimes the
   wild beasts of the forest destroyed his modest harvest, till he drove
   them away forever with the expostulation: "Why do you injure me, who
   have never done you the slightest harm? Away with you all, in the name
   of the Lord, and never come into my neighborhood again." He slept on
   bare ground, or at best on a pallet of straw; but often he watched the
   whole night through in prayer. The anointing of the body with oil he
   despised, and in later years never washed his feet; as if filthiness
   were an essential element of ascetic perfection. His whole wardrobe
   consisted of a hair shirt, a sheepskin, and a girdle. But
   notwithstanding all, he had a winning friendliness and cheerfulness in
   his face.

   Conflicts with the devil and his hosts of demons were, as with other
   solitary saints, a prominent part of Anthony's experience, and
   continued through all his life. The devil appeared to him in visions
   and dreams, or even in daylight, in all possible forms, now as a
   friend, now as a fascinating woman, now as a dragon, tempting him by
   reminding him of his former wealth, of his noble family, of the care
   due to his sister, by promises of wealth, honor, and renown, by
   exhibitions of the difficulty of virtue and the facility of vice, by
   unchaste thoughts and images, by terrible threatening of the dangers
   and punishments of the ascetic life. Once he struck the hermit so
   violently, Athanasius says, that a friend, who brought him bread, found
   him on the ground apparently dead. At another time he broke through the
   wall of his cave and filled the room with roaring lions, howling
   wolves, growling bears, fierce hyenas, crawling serpents and scorpions;
   but Anthony turned manfully toward the monsters, till a supernatural
   light broke in from the roof and dispersed them. His sermon, which he
   delivered to the hermits at their request, treats principally of these
   wars with demons, and gives also the key to the interpretation of them:
   "Fear not Satan and his angels. Christ has broken their power. The best
   weapon against them is faith and piety .... The presence of evil
   spirits reveals itself in perplexity, despondency, hatred of the
   ascetics, evil desires, fear of death .... They take the form answering
   to the spiritual state they find in us at the time. [316] They are the
   reflex of our thoughts and fantasies. If thou art carnally minded, thou
   art their prey; but if thou rejoicest in the Lord and occupiest thyself
   with divine things, they are powerless .... The devil is afraid of
   fasting, of prayer, of humility and good works. His illusions soon
   vanish, when one arms himself with the sign of the cross."

   Only in exceptional cases did Anthony leave his solitude; and then he
   made a powerful impression on both Christians and heathens with his
   hairy dress and his emaciated, ghostlike form. In the year 311, during
   the persecution under Maximinus, he appeared in Alexandria in the hope
   of himself gaining the martyr's crown. He visited the confessors in the
   mines and prisons, encouraged them before the tribunal, accompanied
   them to the scaffold; but no one ventured to lay hands on the saint of
   the wilderness. In the year 351, when a hundred years old, he showed
   himself for the second and last time in the metropolis of Egypt, to
   bear witness for the orthodox faith of his friend Athanasius against
   Arianism, and in a few days converted more heathens and heretics than
   had otherwise been gained in a whole year. He declared the Arian denial
   of the divinity of Christ worse than the venom of the serpent, and no
   better than heathenism which worshipped the creature instead of the
   Creator. He would have nothing to do with heretics, and warned his
   disciples against intercourse with them. Athanasius attended him to the
   gate of the city, where he cast out an evil spirit from a girl. An
   invitation to stay longer in Alexandria he declined, saying: "As a fish
   out of water, so a monk out of his solitude dies." Imitating his
   example, the monks afterward forsook the wilderness in swarms whenever
   orthodoxy was in danger, and went in long processions with wax tapers
   and responsive singing through the streets, or appeared at the
   councils, to contend for the orthodox faith with all the energy of
   fanaticism, often even with physical force.

   Though Anthony shunned the society of men, yet he was frequently
   visited in his solitude and resorted to for consolation and aid by
   Christians and heathens, by ascetics, sick, and needy, as a
   heaven-descended physician of Egypt for body and soul. He enjoined
   prayer, labor, and care of the poor, exhorted those at strife to the
   love of God, and healed the sick and demoniac with his prayer.
   Athanasius relates several miracles performed by him, the truth of
   which we leave undecided though they are far less incredible and absurd
   than many other monkish stories of that age. Anthony, his biographer
   assures us, never boasted when his prayer was heard, nor murmured when
   it was not, but in either case thanked God. He cautioned monks against
   overrating the gift of miracles, since it is not our work, but the
   grace of the Lord; and he reminds them of the word: "Rejoice not, that
   the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your
   names are written in heaven." To Martianus, an officer, who urgently
   besought him to heal his possessed daughter, he said: "Man, why dost
   thou call on me? I am a man, as thou art. If thou believest, pray to
   God, and he will hear thee." Martianus prayed, and on his return found
   his daughter whole.

   Anthony distinguished himself above most of his countless disciples and
   successors, by his fresh originality of mind. Though uneducated and
   limited, he had sound sense and ready mother wit. Many of his striking
   answers and felicitous sentences have come down to us. When some
   heathen philosophers once visited him, he asked them: "Why do you give
   yourselves so much trouble to see a fool?" They explained, perhaps
   ironically, that they took him rather for a wise man. He replied: "If
   you take me for a fool, your labor is lost; but if I am a wise man, you
   should imitate me, and be Christians, as I am." At another time, when
   taunted with his ignorance, he asked: "Which is older and better, mind
   or learning?" The mind, was the answer. "Then," said the hermit, "the
   mind can do without learning." "My book," he remarked on a similar
   occasion, "is the whole creation, which lies open before me, and in
   which I can read the word of God as often as I will." The blind
   church-teacher, Didymus, whom he met in Alexandria, he comforted with
   the words: "Trouble not thyself for the loss of the outward eye, with
   which even flies see; but rejoice in the possession of the spiritual
   eye, with which also angels behold the face of God, and receive his
   light." [317] Even the emperor Constantine, with his sons, wrote to him
   as a spiritual father, and begged an answer from him. The hermit at
   first would not so much as receive the letter, since, in any case,
   being unable to write, he could not answer it, and cared as little for
   the great of this world as Diogenes for Alexander. When told that the
   emperor was a Christian, he dictated the answer: "Happy thou, that thou
   worshippest Christ. Be not proud of thy earthly power. Think of the
   future judgment, and know that Christ is the only true and eternal
   king. Practise justice and love for men, and care for the poor." To his
   disciples he said on this occasion: "Wonder not that the emperor writes
   to me, for he is a man. Wonder much more that God has written the law
   for man, and has spoken to us by his own Son."

   During the last years of his life the patriarch of monasticism withdrew
   as much as possible from the sight of visitors, but allowed two
   disciples to live with him, and to take care of him in his infirm old
   age. When he felt his end approaching, he commanded them not to embalm
   his body, according to the Egyptian custom, but to bury it in the
   earth, and to keep the spot of his interment secret. One of his two
   sheepskins he bequeathed to the bishop Serapion, the other, with his
   underclothing, to Athanasius, who had once given it to him new, and now
   received it back worn out. What became of the robe woven from palm
   leaves, which, according to Jerome, he had inherited from Paul of
   Thebes, and wore at Easter and Pentecost, Athanasius does not tell us.
   After this disposition of his property, Anthony said to his disciples:
   "Children, farewell; for Anthony goes away, and will be no more with
   you." With these words he stretched out his feet and expired with a
   smiling face, in the year 356, a hundred and five years old. His grave
   remained for centuries unknown. His last will was thus a protest
   against the worship of saints and relics, which, however, it
   nevertheless greatly helped to promote. Under Justinian, in 561, his
   bones, as the Bollandists and Butler minutely relate, were miraculously
   discovered, brought to Alexandria, then to Constantinople, and at last
   to Vienne in South France, and in the eleventh century, during the
   raging of an epidemic disease, the so-called "holy fire," or "St.
   Anthony's fire," they are said to have performed great wonders.

   Athanasius, the greatest man of the Nicene age, concludes his biography
   of his friend with this sketch of his character: "From this short
   narrative you may judge how great a man Anthony was, who persevered in
   the ascetic life from youth to the highest age. In his advanced age he
   never allowed himself better food, nor change of raiment, nor did he
   even wash his feet. Yet he continued healthy in all his parts. His
   eyesight was clear to the end, and his teeth sound, though by long use
   worn to mere stumps. He retained also the perfect use of his hands and
   feet, and was more robust and vigorous than those who are accustomed to
   change of food and clothing and to washing. His fame spread from his
   remote dwelling on the lone mountain over the whole Roman empire. What
   gave him his renown, was not learning nor worldly wisdom, nor human
   art, but alone his piety toward God .... And let all the brethren know,
   that the Lord will not only take holy monks to heaven, but give them
   celebrity in all the earth, however deep they may bury themselves in
   the wilderness."

   The whole Nicene age venerated in Anthony a model saint. [318] This
   fact brings out most characteristically the vast difference between the
   ancient and the modern, the old Catholic and the evangelical Protestant
   conception of the nature of the Christian religion. The specifically
   Christian element in the life of Anthony, especially as measured by the
   Pauline standard, is very small. Nevertheless we can but admire the
   needy magnificence, the simple, rude grandeur of this hermit sanctity
   even in its aberration. Anthony concealed under his sheepskin a
   childlike humility, an amiable simplicity, a rare energy of will, and a
   glowing love to God, which maintained itself for almost ninety years in
   the absence of all the comforts and pleasures of natural life, and
   triumphed over all the temptations of the flesh. By piety alone,
   without the help of education or learning, he became one of the most
   remarkable and influential men in the history of the ancient church.
   Even heathen contemporaries could not withhold from him their
   reverence, and the celebrated philosopher Synesius, afterward a bishop,
   before his conversion reckoned Anthony among those rare men, in whom
   flashes of thought take the place of reasonings, and natural power of
   mind makes schooling needless. [319]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [308] Pliny counts thirty-nine different sorts of palm trees, of which
   the best grow in Egypt, are ever green, have thick foliage, and bear a
   fruit, from which in some places bread is made.

   [309] Jeromesays of Anthony, in his Vita Pauli Theb. (c. i.): "Non tam
   ipse auto omnes (eremitas) fuit, quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt
   studia."

   [310] According to the common opinion, which was also Augustine's,
   Anthonycould not even read. But Tillemont (tom. vii. 107 and 666),
   Butler, and others think that this igorance related only to the Greek
   alphabet, not to the Egyptian. Athanasius, p. 795, expresses himself
   somewhat indistinctly; that, from dread of society, he would not
   mathein grammata (letters? or the arts?), but speaks afterward of his
   regard for reading.

   [311] Augustinesays of him, De doctr. Christ. § 4, that, without being
   able to read from only hearing the Bible, he knew it by heart. The life
   of Athanasius shows, indeed, that a number of Scripture passages were
   very familiar to him. But of a connected and deep knowledge of
   Scripture in him, or in these anchorets generally, we find no trace.

   [312] Matt. xix. 21.

   [313] Matt. vi. 34.

   [314] Eis parthenona, says Athanasius; i.e., not "un monastere de
   verges," as Tillemont translates, for nunneries did not yet exist; but
   a society of female ascetics within the congregation; from which,
   however, a regular cloister might of course very easily grow.

   [315] Jerome, in his Vita Hilarionis, c. 31, gives an incidental
   description of this last residence of Anthony, according to which it
   was not so desolate as from Athanasius one would infer. He speaks even
   of palms, fruit trees, and vines in this garden, the fruit of which any
   one would have enjoyed.

   [316] Athanas. c. 42: Elthontes gar (hoi echthroi) hopoious an heurosin
   hemas, toioutoi kai autoi ginontai, etc.--an important psychological
   observation.

   [317] This is not told indeed by Athanasius, but by Rufinus, Jerome,
   and Socrates (Hist. Eccl. iv. 25). Comp. Tillemont, l.c. p. 129.

   [318] Comp. the proofs in Tillemont, l.c. p. 137 sq.

   [319] Dion, fol. 51, ed. Petav., cited in Tillemont and Neander.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 36. Spread of Anchoretism. Hilarion.

   The example of Anthony acted like magic upon his generation, and his
   biography by Athanasius, which was soon translated also into Latin, was
   a tract for the times. Chrysostom recommended it to all as instructive
   and edifying reading. [320] Even Augustine, the most evangelical of the
   fathers, was powerfully affected by the reading of it in his decisive
   religious struggle, and was decided by it in his entire renunciation of
   the world. [321]

   In a short time, still in the lifetime of Anthony, the deserts of
   Egypt, from Nitria, south of Alexandria, and the wilderness of Scetis,
   to Libya and the Thebaid, were peopled with anchorets and studded with
   cells. A mania for monasticism possessed Christendom, and seized the
   people of all classes like an epidemic. As martyrdom had formerly been,
   so now monasticism was, the quickest and surest way to renown upon
   earth and to eternal reward in heaven. This prospect, with which
   Athanasius concludes his life of Anthony, abundantly recompensed all
   self-denial and mightily stimulated pious ambition. The consistent
   recluse must continually increase his seclusion. No desert was too
   scorching, no rock too forbidding, no cliff too steep, no cave too
   dismal for the feet of these world-hating and man-shunning enthusiasts.
   Nothing was more common than to see from two to five hundred monks
   under the same abbot. It has been supposed, that in Egypt the number of
   anchorets and cenobites equalled the population of the cities. [322]
   The natural contrast between the desert and the fertile valley of the
   Nile, was reflected in the moral contrast between the monastic life and
   the world.

   The elder Macarius [323] introduced the hermit life in the frightful
   desert of Scetis; Amun or Ammon, [324] on the Nitrian mountain. The
   latter was married, but persuaded his bride, immediately after the
   nuptials, to live with him in the strictest abstinence. Before the end
   of the fourth century there were in Nitria alone, according to Sozomen,
   five thousand monks, who lived mostly in separate cells or laurae, and
   never spoke with one another except on Saturday and Sunday, when they
   assembled for common worship.

   From Egypt the solitary life spread to the neighboring countries.

   Hilarion, whose life Jerome has written graphically and at large, [325]
   established it in the wilderness of Gaza, in Palestine and Syria. This
   saint attained among the anchorets of the fourth century an eminence
   second only to Anthony. He was the son of pagan parents, and grew up
   "as a rose among thorns." He went to school in Alexandria, diligently
   attended church, and avoided the circus, the gladiatorial shows, and
   the theatre. He afterward lived two months with St. Anthony, and became
   his most celebrated disciple. After the death of his parents, he
   distributed his inheritance among his brothers and the poor, and
   reserved nothing, fearing the example of Ananias and Sapphira, and
   remembering the word of Christ: "Whosoever he be of you, that forsaketh
   not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." [326] He then retired
   into the wilderness of Gaza, which was inhabited only by robbers and
   assassins; battled, like Anthony, with obscene dreams and other
   temptations of the devil; and so reduced his body--the "ass," which
   ought to have not barley, but chaff--with fastings and night watchings,
   that, while yet a youth of twenty years, he looked almost like a
   skeleton. He never ate before sunset. Prayers, psalm singing, Bible
   recitations, and basket weaving were his employment. His cell was only
   five feet high, lower than his own stature, and more like a sepulchre
   than a dwelling. He slept on the ground. He cut his hair only once a
   year, at Easter. The fame of his sanctity gradually attracted hosts of
   admirers (once, ten thousand), so that he had to change his residence
   several times, and retired to Sicily, then to Dalmatia, and at last to
   the island of Cyprus, where he died in 371, in his eightieth year. His
   legacy, a book of the Gospels and a rude mantle, he made to his friend
   Hesychius, who took his corpse home to Palestine, and deposited it in
   the cloister of Majumas. The Cyprians consoled themselves over their
   loss, with the thought that they possessed the spirit of the saint.
   Jerome ascribes to him all manner of visions and miraculous cures.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [320] Hom. viii. in Matth. tom. vii. 128 (ed. Montfaucon).

   [321] · Comp. Aug.: Confess. l. viii. c. 6 and 28.

   [322] "Quanti populi," says Rufinus (Vitae Patr. ii c. 7), "habentur in
   urbibus, tantae paene habentur in desertis multitudines monachorum."
   Gibbon adds the sarcastic remark: "Posterity might repeat the saying,
   which had formerly been applied to sacred animals of the same country,
   That in Egypt it was less difficult to find a god than a man."
   Montalembert (Monks of the West, vol. i. p. 314) says of the increase
   of monks: "Nothing in the wonderful history of these hermits in Egypt
   is so incredible as their number. But the most weighty authorities
   agreed in establishing it (S. Augustine, De morib. Eccles. i. 31). It
   was a kind of emigration of towns to the desert, of civilization to
   simplicity, of noise to silence, of corruption to innocence. The
   current once begun, floods of men, of women, and of children threw
   themselves into it, and flowed thither during a century with
   irresistible force."

   [323] There were several (five or seven) anchorets of this name, who
   are often confounded. The most celebrated are Macarius the elder, or
   the Great ( 390), to whom the Homilies probably belong; and Macarius
   the younger, of Alexandria ( 404), the teacher of Palladius, who spent
   a long time with him, and set him as high as the other. Comp.
   Tillemont's extended account, tom. viii. p. 574-650, and the notes, p.
   811 sqq.

   [324] On Ammon, or, in Egyptian, Amus and Amun, comp. Tillemont, viii.
   p. 153-166, and the notes, p. 672-674.

   [325] Opera, tom. ii. p. 13-40.

   [326] Lu. xiv. 33.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 37. St. Symeon and the Pillar Saints.

   Respecting St. Symeon, or Simeon Stylites, we have accounts from three
   contemporaries and eye witnesses, Anthony, Cosmas, and especially
   Theodoret (Hist. Relig. c. 26). The latter composed his narrative
   sixteen years before the death the saint.

   Evagrius: H. E. i. c. 13. The Acta Sanctorum and Butler, sub Jan. 5.
   Uhlemann: Symeon, der erste Säulenheilige in Syrien. Leipz. 1846.
   (Comp. also the fine poem of A. Tennyson: St. Symeon Stylites, a
   monologue in which S. relates his own experience.)

   It is unnecessary to recount the lives of other such anchorets; since
   the same features, even to unimportant details, repeat themselves in
   all. [327] But in the fifth century a new and quite original path [328]
   was broken by Symeon, the father of the Stylites or pillar saints, who
   spent long years, day and night, summer and winter, rain and sunshine,
   frost and heat, standing on high, unsheltered pillars, in prayer and
   penances, and made the way to heaven for themselves so passing hard,
   that one knows not whether to wonder at their unexampled self-denial,
   or to pity their ignorance of the gospel salvation. On this giddy
   height the anchoretic asceticism reached its completion.

   St. Symeon the Stylite, originally a shepherd on the borders of Syria
   and Cilicia, when a boy of thirteen years, was powerfully affected by
   the beatitudes, which he heard read in the church, and betook himself
   to a cloister. He lay several days, without eating or drinking, before
   the threshold, and begged to be admitted as the meanest servant of the
   house. He accustomed himself to eat only once a week, on Sunday. During
   Lent he even went through the whole forty days without any food; a fact
   almost incredible even for a tropical climate. [329] The first attempt
   of this kind brought him to the verge of death; but his constitution
   conformed itself, and when Theodoret visited him, he had solemnized six
   and twenty Lent seasons by total abstinence, and thus surpassed Moses,
   Elias, and even Christ, who never fasted so but once. Another of his
   extraordinary inflections was to lace his body so tightly that the cord
   pressed through to the bones, and could be cut off only with the most
   terrible pains. This occasioned his dismissal from the cloister. He
   afterward spent some time as a hermit upon a mountain, with an iron
   chain upon his feet, and was visited there by admiring and curious
   throngs. When this failed to satisfy him, he invented, in 423, a new
   sort of holiness, and lived, some two days' journey (forty miles) east
   of Antioch, for six and thirty years, until his death, upon a pillar,
   which at the last was nearly forty cubits high; [330] for the pillar
   was raised in proportion as he approached heaven and perfection. Here
   he could never lie nor sit, but only stand, or lean upon a post
   (probably a banister), or devoutly bow; in which last posture he almost
   touched his feet with his head--so flexible had his back been made by
   fasting. A spectator once counted in one day no less than twelve
   hundred and forty-four such genuflexions of the saint before the
   Almighty, and then gave up counting. He wore a covering of the skins of
   beasts, and a chain about his neck. Even the holy sacrament he took
   upon his pillar. There St. Symeon stood many long and weary days, and
   weeks, and months, and years, exposed to the scorching sun, the
   drenching rain, the crackling frost, the howling storm, living a life
   of daily death and martyrdom, groaning under the load of sin, never
   attaining to the true comfort and peace of soul which is derived from a
   child-like trust in Christ's infinite merits, earnestly striving after
   a superhuman holiness, and looking to a glorious reward in heaven, and
   immortal fame on earth. Alfred Tennyson makes him graphically describe
   his experience in a monologue to God:


   'Although I be the basest of mankind,

   From scalp to sole one slough and crust of sin,

   Unfit for earth, unfit for heaven, scarce meet

   For troops of devils, mad with blasphemy,

   I will not cease to grasp the hope I hold

   Of saintdom, and to clamor, moan, and sob

   Battering the gates of heaven with storms of prayer:

   Have mercy, Lord, and take away my sin.

   * * * * * *

   Oh take the meaning, Lord: I do not breathe,

   Not whisper, any murmur of complaint.

   Pain heaped ten hundredfold to this, were still

   Less burthen, by ten hundredfold, to bear,

   Than were those lead-like tons of sin, that crushed

   My spirit flat before Thee.


                                                       O Lord, Lord,

   Thou knowest I bore this better at the first,

   For I was strong and hale of body then;

   And though my teeth, which now are dropt away,

   Would chatter with the cold, and all my beard

   Was tagged with icy fringes in the moon,

   I drowned the whoopings of the owl with sound

   Of pious hymns and psalms, and sometimes saw

   An angel stand and watch me, as I sang.

   Now am I feeble grown: my end draws nigh--

   I hope my end draws nigh: half deaf I am,

   So that I scarce can hear the people hum

   About the column's base; and almost blind,

   And scarce can recognize the fields I know.

   And both my thighs are rotted with the dew,

   Yet cease I not to clamor and to cry,

   While my stiff spine can hold my weary head,

   Till all my limbs drop piecemeal from the stone:

   Have mercy, mercy; take away my sin."

   Yet Symeon was not only concerned about his own salvation. People
   streamed from afar to witness this standing wonder of the age. He spoke
   to all classes with the same friendliness, mildness, and love; only
   women he never suffered to come within the wall which surrounded his
   pillar. From this original pulpit, as a mediator between heaven and
   earth, he preached repentance twice a day to the astonished spectators,
   settled controversies, vindicated the orthodox faith, extorted laws
   even from an emperor, healed the sick wrought miracles, and converted
   thousands of heathen Ishmaelites, Iberians, Armenians, and Persians to
   Christianity, or at least to the Christian name. All this the
   celebrated Theodoret relates as an eyewitness during the lifetime of
   the saint. He terms him the great wonder of the world, [331] and
   compares him to a candle on a candlestick, and to the sun itself, which
   sheds its rays on every side. He asks the objector to this mode of life
   to consider that God often uses very striking means to arouse the
   negligent, as the history of the prophets shows; [332] and concludes
   his narrative with the remark: "Should the saint live longer, he may do
   yet greater wonders, for he is a universal ornament and honor of
   religion."

   He died in 459, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, of a long-concealed
   and loathsome ulcer on his leg; and his body was brought in solemn
   procession to the metropolitan church Of Antioch.

   Even before his death, Symeon enjoyed the unbounded admiration of
   Christians and heathens, of the common people, of the kings of Persia,
   and of the emperors Theodosius II., Leo, and Marcian, who begged his
   blessing and his counsel. No wonder, that, with all his renowned
   humility, he had to struggle with the temptations of spiritual pride.
   Once an angel appeared to him in a vision, with a chariot of fire, to
   convey him, like Elijah, to heaven, because the blessed spirits longed
   for him. He was already stepping into the chariot with his right foot,
   which on this occasion he sprained (as Jacob his thigh), when the
   phantom of Satan was chased away by the sign of the cross. Perhaps this
   incident, which the Acta Sanctorum gives, was afterward invented, to
   account for his sore, and to illustrate the danger of self-conceit.
   Hence also the pious monk Nilus, with good reason, reminded the
   ostentatious pillar saints of the proverb: "He that exalteth himself
   shall be abased." [333]

   Of the later stylites the most distinguished were Daniel ( 490), in the
   vicinity of Constantinople, and Symeon the younger ( 592), in Syria.
   The latter is said to have spent sixty-eight years on a pillar. In the
   East this form of sanctity perpetuated itself, though only in
   exceptional cases, down to the twelfth century. The West, so far as we
   know, affords but one example of a stylite, who, according to Gregory
   of Tours, lived a long time on a pillar near Treves, but came down at
   the command of the bishop, and entered a neighboring cloister.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [327] A peculiar, romantic, but not fully historical interest attaches
   to the biography of the imprisoned and fortunately escaping monk
   Malchus, with his nominal wife, which is preserved to us by Jerome.

   [328] Original at least in the Christian church. Gieseler refers to a
   heathen precedent; the Phallobateisin Syria, mentioned by Lucian, De
   Dea Syria, c. 28 and 29.

   [329] Butler, l.c., however, relates something similar of a
   contemporary Benedictine monk, Dom Claude Leante: "In 1731, when he was
   about fifty-one years of age, he had fasted eleven years without taking
   any food the whole forty days, except what he daily took at mass; and
   what added to the wonder is, that during Lent he did not properly
   sleep, but only dozed. He could not bear the open air; and toward the
   end of Lent he was excessively pale and wasted. This fact is attested
   by his brethren and superiors, in a relation printed at Sens, in 1731."

   [330] The first pillar, which he himself erected, and on which he lived
   four years, was six cubits (pecheon) high, the second twelve, the third
   twenty-two, and the fourth, which the people erected for him, and on
   which he spent twenty years, was thirty-six, according to Theodoret;
   others say forty. The top was only three feet in diameter. It probably
   had a railing, however, on which he could lean in sleep or exhaustion.
   So at least these pillars are drawn in pictures. Food was carried up to
   the pillar saints by their disciples on a ladder.

   [331] To mega thauma tes oikoumenes. Hist. Relig. c. 26, at the
   beginning.

   [332] Referring to Isa xx. 2; Jer. i. 17; xxviii. 12; Hos i. 2; iii. 1;
   Ezek. iv. 4; xii. 5.

   [333] Ep. ii. 114; cited in Gieseler, ii. 2, p. 246, note 47 (Edinb.
   Engl. ed. ii. p. 13, note 47), and in Neander.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 38. Pachomius and the Cloister life.

   On St. Pachomius we have a biography composed soon after his death by a
   monk of Tabennae, and scattered accounts in Palladius, Jerome (Regula
   Pachomii, Latine reddita, Opp. Hieron. ed. Vallarsi, tom. ii. p. 50
   sqq.), Rufinus, Sozomen, &c. Comp. Tillemont, tom. vii. p. 167-235, and
   the Vit. Sanct. sub Maj. 14.

   Though the strictly solitary life long continued in use, and to this
   day appears here and there in the Greek and Roman churches, yet from
   the middle of the fourth century monasticism began to assume in general
   the form of the cloister life, as incurring less risk, being available
   for both sexes, and being profitable to the church. Anthony himself
   gave warning, as we have already observed, against the danger of entire
   isolation, by referring to the proverb: "Woe to him that is alone." To
   many of the most eminent ascetics anchoretism was a stepping stone to
   the coenobite life; to others it was the goal of coenobitism, and the
   last and highest round on the ladder of perfection.

   The founder of this social monachism was Pachomius, a contemporary of
   Anthony, like him an Egyptian, and little below him in renown among the
   ancients. He was born about 292, of heathen parents, in the Upper
   Thebaid, served as a soldier in the army of the tyrant Maximin on the
   expedition against Constantine and Licinius, and was, with his
   comrades, so kindly treated by the Christians at Thebes, that he was
   won to the Christian faith, and, after his discharge from the military
   service, received baptism. Then, in 313, he visited the aged hermit
   Palemon, to learn from him the way to perfection. The saint showed him
   the difficulties of the anchorite life: "Many," said he, "have come
   hither from disgust with the world, and had no perseverance. Remember,
   my son, my food consists only of bread and salt; I drink no wine, take
   no oil, spend half the night awake, singing psalms and meditating on
   the Scriptures, and sometimes pass the whole night without sleep."
   Pachomius was astounded, but not discouraged, and spent several years
   with this man as a pupil.

   In the year 325 he was directed by an angel, in a vision, to establish
   on the island of Tabennae, in the Nile, in Upper Egypt, a society of
   monks, which in a short time became so strong that even before his
   death (348) it numbered eight or nine cloisters in the Thebaid, and
   three thousand (according to some, seven thousand), and, a century
   later, fifty thousand members. The mode of life was fixed by a strict
   rule of Pachomius, which, according to a later legend, an angel
   communicated to him, and which Jerome translated into Latin. The formal
   reception into the society was preceded by a three-years' probation.
   Rigid vows were not yet enjoined. With spiritual exercises manual labor
   was united, agriculture, boat building, basketmaking, mat and coverlet
   weaving, by which the monks not only earned their own living, but also
   supported the poor and the sick. They were divided, according to the
   grade of their ascetic piety, into four and twenty classes, named by
   the letters of the Greek alphabet. They lived three in a cell. They ate
   in common, but in strict silence, and with the face covered. They made
   known their wants by signs. The sick were treated with special care. On
   Saturday and Sunday they partook of the communion. Pachomius, as abbot,
   or archimandrite, took the oversight of the whole; each cloister having
   a separate superior and a steward.

   Pachomius also established a cloister of nuns for his sister, whom he
   never admitted to his presence when she would visit him, sending her
   word that she should be content to know that he was still alive. In
   like manner, the sister of Anthony and the wife of Ammon became centres
   of female cloister life, which spread with great rapidity.

   Pachomius, after his conversion never ate a full meal, and for fifteen
   years slept sitting on a stone. Tradition ascribes to him all sorts of
   miracles, even the gift of tongues and perfect dominion over nature, so
   that he trod without harm on serpents and scorpions, and crossed the
   Nile on the backs of crocodiles! [334] Soon after Pachomius, fifty
   monasteries arose on the Nitrian mountain, in no respect inferior to
   those in the Thebaid. They maintained seven bakeries for the benefit of
   the anchorets in the neighboring Libyan desert, and gave attention
   also, at least in later days, to theological studies; as the valuable
   manuscripts recently discovered there evince.

   From Egypt the cloister life spread with the rapidity of the
   irresistible spirit of the age, over the entire Christian East. The
   most eminent fathers of the Greek church were either themselves monks
   for a time, or at all events friends and patrons of monasticism.
   Ephraim propagated it in Mesopotamia; Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia
   and Paphlagonia; Basil the Great in Pontus and Cappadocia. The latter
   provided his monasteries and nunneries with clergy, and gave them an
   improved rule, which, before his death (379), was accepted by some
   eighty thousand monks, and translated by Rufinus into Latin. He sought
   to unite the virtues of the anchorite and coenobite life, and to make
   the institution useful to the church by promoting the education of
   youth, and also (as Athanasius designed before him) by combating
   Arianism among the people. [335] He and his friend Gregory Nazianzen
   were the first to unite scientific theological studies with the ascetic
   exercises of solitude. Chrysostom wrote three books in praise and
   vindication of the monastic life, and exhibits it in general in its
   noblest aspect.

   In the beginning of the fifth century, Eastern monasticism was most
   worthily represented by the elder Nilus of Sinai, a pupil and venerator
   of Chrysostom, and a copious ascetic writer, who retired with his son
   from a high civil office in Constantinople to Mount Sinai, while his
   wife, with a daughter, travelled to an Egyptian cloister; [336] and by
   the abbot Isidore, of Pelusium, on the principal eastern mouth of the
   Nile, from whom we have two thousand epistles. [337] The writings of
   these two men show a rich spiritual experience, and an extended and
   fertile field of labor and usefulness in their age and generation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [334] Möhler remarks on this (Vermischte Schriften, ii. p. 183): "Thus
   antiquity expresses its faith, that for man perfectly reconciled with
   God there is no enemy in nature. There is more than poetry here; there
   is expressed at least the high opinion his own and future generations
   had of Pachomius." The last qualifying remark suggests a doubt even in
   the mind of this famous modern champion of Romanism as to the real
   historical character of the wonderful tales of this monastic saint.

   [335] Gregory Nazianzen, in his eulogy on Basil (Orat. xx. of the old
   order, Orat. xliii. in the new Par. ed.), gives him the honor of
   endeavoring to unite the theoretical and the practical modes of life in
   monasticism, ina mete to philosophon akoinoneton he, mete to praktikon
   aphilosophon.

   [336] Comp. Neander, iii. 487 (Torrey's translation, vol. ii. p. 250
   sqq.), who esteems Nilus highly; and the article of Gass in Herzog's
   Theol. Encykl. vol. x. p, 355 sqq. His works are in the Bibl. Max. vet.
   Patr. tom. vii., and in Migne's Patrol. Gr. t. 79.

   [337] Comp. on him Tillemont, xv., and H. A. Niemeyer: "De Isid. Pel.
   vita, scripet doctrina," Hal. 1825. His Epistles are in the 7th volume
   of the Bibliotheca Maxima, and in Migne's Patrol. Graeca, tom. 58,
   Paris, 1860.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 39. Fanatical and Heretical Monastic Societies in The East.

   Acta Concil. Gangrenensis, in Mansi, ii. 1095 sqq. Epiphan.: Haer. 70,
   75 and 80. Socr.: H. E. ii. 43. Sozom.: iv. 24. Theodor.: H. E. iv. 9,
   10; Fab. haer. iv. 10, 11. Comp. Neander: iii. p. 468 sqq. (ed. Torrey,
   ii. 238 sqq.).

   Monasticism generally adhered closely to the orthodox faith of the
   church. The friendship between Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy, and
   Anthony, the father of monachism, is on this point a classical fact.
   But Nestorianism also, and Eutychianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism,
   and other heresies, proceeded from monks, and found in monks their most
   vigorous advocates. And the monastic enthusiasm ran also into ascetic
   heresies of its own, which we must notice here.

   1. The Eustathians, so named from Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste and
   friend of Basil, founder of monasticism in Armenia, Pontus, and
   Paphlagonia. This sect asserted that marriage debarred from salvation
   and incapacitated for the clerical office. For this and other
   extravagances it was condemned by a council at Gangra in Paphlagonia
   (between 360 and 370), and gradually died out.

   2. The Audians held similar principles. Their founder, Audius, or Udo,
   a layman of Syria, charged the clergy of his day with immorality,
   especially avarice and extravagance. After much persecution, which he
   bore patiently, he forsook the church, with his friends, among whom
   were some bishops and priests, and, about 330, founded a rigid monastic
   sect in Scythia, which subsisted perhaps a hundred years. They were
   Quartodecimans in the practice of Easter, observing it on the 14th of
   Nisan, according to Jewish fashion. Epiphanius speaks favorably of
   their exemplary but severely ascetic life.

   3. The Euchites or Messalians, [338] also called Enthusiasts, were
   roaming mendicant monks in Mesopotamia and Syria (dating from 360), who
   conceived the Christian life as an unintermitted prayer, despised all
   physical labor, the moral law, and the sacraments, and boasted
   themselves perfect. They taught, that every man brings an evil demon
   with him into the world, which can only be driven away by prayer; then
   the Holy Ghost comes into the soul, liberates it from all the bonds of
   sense, and raises it above the need of instruction and the means of
   grace. The gospel history they declared a mere allegory. But they
   concealed their pantheistic mysticism and antinomianism under external
   conformity to the Catholic church. When their principles, toward the
   end of the fourth century, became known, the persecution of both the
   ecclesiastical and the civil authority fell upon them. Yet they
   perpetuated themselves to the seventh century, and reappeared in the
   Euchites and Bogomiles of the middle age.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [338] From nyltslm = Euchitai-i, -i from euche-i,-i prayer.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 40. Monasticism in the West. Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Martin
   of Tours.

   I. Ambrosius: De Virginibus ad Marcellinam sororem suam libri tres,
   written about 377 (in the Benedictine edition of Ambr. Opera, tom. ii.
   p. 145-183). Augustinus (a.d. 400): De Opere Monachorum liber unus (in
   the Bened. ed., tom. vi. p. 476-504). Sulpitius Severus (about a.d.
   403): Dialogi tres (de virtutibus monachorum orientalium et de
   virtutibus B. Martini); and De Vita Beati Martini (both in the
   Bibliotheca Maxima vet. Patrum, tom. vi. p. 349 sqq., and better in
   Gallandi's Bibliotheca vet. Patrum, tom. viii. p. 392 sqq.).

   II. J. Mabillon: Observat. de monachis in occidente ante Benedictum
   (Praef. in Acta Sanct. Ord. Bened.). R. H. Milman: Hist. of Latin
   Christianity, Lond. 1854, vol. i. ch. vi. p. 409-426: "Western
   Monasticism." Count de Montalembert: The Monks of the West, Engl.
   translation, vol. i. p. 379 sqq.

   In the Latin church, in virtue partly of the climate, partly of the
   national character, [339] the monastic life took a much milder form,
   but assumed greater variety, and found a larger field of usefulness
   than in the Greek. It produced no pillar saints, nor other such
   excesses of ascetic heroism, but was more practical instead, and an
   important instrument for the cultivation of the soil and the diffusion
   of Christianity and civilization among the barbarians. [340] Exclusive
   contemplation was exchanged for alternate contemplation and labor. "A
   working monk," says Cassian, "is plagued by one devil, an inactive monk
   by a host." Yet it must not be forgotten that the most eminent
   representatives of the Eastern monasticism recommended manual labor and
   studies; and that the Eastern monks took a very lively, often rude and
   stormy part in theological controversies. And on the other hand, there
   were Western monks who, like Martin of Tours, regarded labor as
   disturbing contemplation.

   Athanasius, the guest, the disciple, and subsequently the biographer
   and eulogist of St. Anthony, brought the first intelligence of
   monasticism to the West, and astounded the civilized and effeminate
   Romans with two live representatives of the semi-barbarous
   desert-sanctity of Egypt, who accompanied him in his exile in 340. The
   one, Ammonius, was so abstracted from the world that he disdained to
   visit any of the wonders of the great city, except the tombs of St.
   Peter and St. Paul; while the other, Isidore, attracted attention by
   his amiable simplicity. The phenomenon excited at first disgust and
   contempt, but soon admiration and imitation, especially among women,
   and among the decimated ranks of the ancient Roman nobility. The
   impression of the first visit was afterward strengthened by two other
   visits of Athanasius to Rome, and especially by his biography of
   Anthony, which immediately acquired the popularity and authority of a
   monastic gospel. Many went to Egypt and Palestine, to devote themselves
   there to the new mode of life; and for the sake of such, Jerome
   afterward translated the rule of Pachomius into Latin. Others founded
   cloisters in the neighborhood of Rome, or on the ruins of the ancient
   temples and the forum, and the frugal number of the heathen vestals was
   soon cast into the shade by whole hosts of Christian virgins. From
   Rome, monasticism gradually spread over all Italy and the isles of the
   Mediterranean, even to the rugged rocks of the Gorgon and the Capraja,
   where the hermits, in voluntary exile from the world, took the place of
   the criminals and political victims whom the justice or tyranny and
   jealousy of the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither.

   Ambrose, whose sister, Marcellina, was among the first Roman nuns,
   established a monastery in Milan, [341] one of the first in Italy, and
   with the warmest zeal encouraged celibacy even against the will of
   parents; insomuch that the mothers of Milan kept their daughters out of
   the way of his preaching; whilst from other quarters, even from
   Mauritania, virgins flocked to him to be consecrated to the solitary
   life. [342] The coasts and small islands of Italy were gradually
   studded with cloisters. [343]

   Augustine, whose evangelical principles of the free grace of God as the
   only ground of salvation and peace were essentially inconsistent with
   the more Pelagian theory of the monastic life, nevertheless went with
   the then reigning spirit of the church in this respect, and led, with
   his clergy, a monk-like life in voluntary poverty and celibacy, [344]
   after the pattern, as he thought, of the primitive church of Jerusalem;
   but with all his zealous commendation he could obtain favor for
   monasticism in North Africa only among the liberated slaves and the
   lower classes. [345] He viewed it in its noblest aspect, as a life of
   undivided surrender to God, and undisturbed occupation with spiritual
   and eternal things. But he acknowledged also its abuses; he distinctly
   condemned the vagrant, begging monks, like the Circumcelliones and
   Gyrovagi, and wrote a book (De opere monachorum) against the monastic
   aversion to labor.

   Monasticism was planted in Gaul by Martin of Tours, whose life and
   miracles were described in fluent, pleasing language by his disciple,
   Sulpitius Severus, [346] a few years after his death. This celebrated
   saint, the patron of fields, was born in Pannonia (Hungary), of pagan
   parents. He was educated in Italy, and served three years, against his
   will, as a soldier under Constantius and Julian the Apostate. Even at
   that time he showed an uncommon degree of temperance, humility, and
   love. He often cleaned his servant's shoes, and once cut his only cloak
   in two with his sword, to clothe a naked beggar with half; and the next
   night he saw Christ in a dream with the half cloak, and plainly heard
   him say to the angels: "Behold, Martin, who is yet only a catechumen,
   hath clothed me." [347] He was baptized in his eighteenth year;
   converted his mother; lived as a hermit in Italy; afterward built a
   monastery in the vicinity of Poictiers (the first in France); destroyed
   many idol temples, and won great renown as a saint and a worker of
   miracles. About the year 370 he was unanimously elected by the people,
   against his wish, bishop of Tours on the Loire, but in his episcopal
   office maintained his strict monastic mode of life, and established a
   monastery beyond the Loire, where he was soon surrounded with eighty
   monks. He had little education, but a natural eloquence, much spiritual
   experience, and unwearied zeal. Sulpitius Severus places him above all
   the Eastern monks of whom he knew, and declares his merit to be beyond
   all expression. "Not an hour passed," says he, [348] "in which Martin
   did not pray .... No one ever saw him angry, or gloomy, or merry. Ever
   the same, with a countenance full of heavenly serenity, he seemed to be
   raised above the infirmities of man. There was nothing in his mouth but
   Christ; nothing in his heart but piety, peace, and sympathy. He used to
   weep for the sins of his enemies, who reviled him with poisoned tongues
   when he was absent and did them no harm .... Yet he had very few
   persecutors, except among the bishops." The biographer ascribes to him
   wondrous conflicts with the devil, whom he imagined he saw bodily and
   tangibly present in all possible shapes. He tells also of visions,
   miraculous cures, and even, what no oriental anchoret could boast,
   three instances of restoration of the dead to life, two before and one
   after his accession to the bishopric; [349] and he assures us that he
   has omitted the greater part of the miracles which had come to his
   ears, lest he should weary the reader; but he several times intimates
   that these were by no means universally credited, even by monks of the
   same cloister. His piety was characterized by a union of monastic
   humility with clerical arrogance. At a supper at the court of the
   tyrannical emperor Maximus in Trier, he handed the goblet of wine,
   after he himself had drunk of it, first to his presbyter, thus giving
   him precedence of the emperor. [350] The empress on this occasion
   showed him an idolatrous veneration, even preparing the meal, laying
   the cloth, and standing as a servant before him, like Martha before the
   Lord. [351] More to the bishop's honor was his protest against the
   execution of the Priscillianists in Treves. Martin died in 397 or 400:
   his funeral was attended by two thousand monks, besides many nuns and a
   great multitude of people; and his grave became one of the most
   frequented centres of pilgrimage in France.

   In Southern Gaul, monasticism spread with equal rapidity. John Cassian,
   an ascetic writer and a Semipelagian ( 432), founded two cloisters in
   Massilia (Marseilles), where literary studies also were carried on; and
   Honoratus (after 426, bishop of Arles) established the cloister of St.
   Honoratus on the island of Lerina.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [339] Sulpitius Severus, in the first of his three dialogues, gives
   several amusing instances of the difference between the Gallic and
   Egyptian stomach, and was greatly astonished when the first Egyptian
   anchoret whom he visited placed before him and his four companions a
   half loaf of barley bread and a handful of herbs for a dinner, though
   they tasted very good after the wearisome journey. "Edacitas," says he,
   "in Graecis gula est, in Gallia natura." (Dial. i. c. 8, in Gallandi,
   t. viii. p. 405.)

   [340] "The monastic stream," says Montalembert, l.c., "which had been
   born in the deserts of Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The
   one spread in the East, at first inundated everything, then
   concentrated and lost itself there. The other escaped into the West,
   and spread itself by a thousand channels over an entire world, which
   had to be covered and fertilized."

   [341] Augustine, Conf. vii. 6: "Erat monasterium Mediolani plenum bonis
   fratribus extra urbis moenia, sub Ambrosio nutritore."

   [342] Ambr.: De virginibus, lib. iii., addressed to his sister
   Marcellina, about 377. Comp. Tillem. x. 102-105, and Schröckh, viii.
   355 sqq.

   [343] Ambr.: Hexaëmeron, l. iii. c. 5. Hieron.: Ep. ad Oceanum de morte
   Fabiolae, Ep. 77 ed. Vall. (84 ed. Ben., al. 30).

   [344] He himself speaks of a monasterium clericorum in his episcopal
   residence, and his biographer, Possidius, says of him, Vita, c. 5:
   "Factus ergo presbyter monasterium inter ecclesiam mox instituit, et
   cum Dei servis vivere coepit secundum modum, et regulam sub sanctis
   apostlis constitutam, maxime ut nemo quidquam proprium haberet, sed eis
   essent omnia communia."

   [345] De opera monach. c. 22. Still later, Salvian (De gubern. Dei,
   viii. 4) speaks of the hatred of the Africans for monasticism.

   [346] In his Vita Martini, and also in three letters respecting him,
   and in three very eloquently and elegantly written dialogues, the first
   of which relates to the oriental monks, the two others to the miracles
   of Martin (translated, with some omissions, in Ruffner's Fathers of the
   Desert, vol. ii. p. 68-178). He tells us (Dial. i. c. 23) that the book
   traders of Rome sold his Vita Martini more rapidly than any other book,
   and made great profit on it. The Acts of the Saints were read as
   romances in those days.

   [347] The biographer here refers, of course, to Matt. xxv. 40

   [348] Toward the close of his biography, c. 26, 27 (Gallandi, tom.
   viii. 399).

   [349] Comp. Dial. ii. 5 (in Gallandi Bibl. tom. viii. p. 412).

   [350] Vita M. c. 20 (in Gallandi, viii. 397).

   [351] Dial. ii. 7, which probably relates to the same banquet, since
   Martin declined other invitations to the imperial table. Severus gives
   us to understand that this was the only time Martin allowed a woman so
   near him, or received her service. He commended a nun for declining
   even his official visit as bishop, and Severus remarks thereupon: "O
   glorious virgin, who would not even suffer herself to be seen by
   Martin! O blessed Martin, who took not this refusal for an insult, but
   commended its virtue, and rejoiced to find in that region so rare an
   example!" (Dial, ii. c. 12, Gall, viii. 414.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 41. St. Jerome as a Monk.

   S. Eus. Hieronymi: Opera omnia, ed. Erasmus (assisted by
   Oecolampadius), Bas. 1516-'20, 9 vols. fol.; ed. (Bened.) Martianay,
   Par. 1693-1706, 5 vols. fol. (incomplete); ed. Vallarsi and Maffei,
   Veron. 1734-'42, 11 vols. fol., also Venet. 1766 (best edition). Comp.
   especially the 150 Epistles, often separately edited (the chronological
   order of which Vallarsi, in tom. i. of his edition, has finally
   established).

   For extended works on the life of Jerome see Du Pin (Nouvelle Biblioth.
   des auteurs Eccles. tom. iii. p. 100-140); Tillemont (tom. xii. 1-356);
   Martianay (La vie de St. Jerôme, Par. 1706); Joh. Stilting (in the Acta
   Sanctorum, Sept. tom. viii. p. 418-688, Antw. 1762); Butler (sub Sept.
   30); Vallarsi (in Op. Hieron., tom. xi. p. 1-240); Schröckh (viii. 359
   sqq., and especially xi. 3-254); Engelstoft (Hieron. Stridonensis,
   interpres, criticus, exegeta, apologeta, historicus, doctor, monachus,
   Havn. 1798); D. v. Cölln (in Ersch and Gruber's Encycl. sect. ii. vol.
   8); Collombet (Histoire de S. Jérôme, Lyons, 1844); and O. Zöckler
   (Hieronymus, sein Leben und Wirken. Gotha, 1865).

   The most zealous promoter of the monastic life among the church fathers
   was Jerome, the connecting link between Eastern and Western learning
   and religion. His life belongs almost with equal right to the history
   of theology and the history of monasticism. Hence the church art
   generally represents him as a penitent in a reading or writing posture,
   with a lion and a skull, to denote the union of the literary and
   anchoretic modes of life. He was the first learned divine who not only
   recommended but actually embraced the monastic mode of life, and his
   example exerted a great influence in making monasticism available for
   the promotion of learning. To rare talents and attainments, [352]
   indefatigable activity of mind, ardent faith, immortal merit in the
   translation and interpretation of the Bible, and earnest zeal for
   ascetic piety, he united so great vanity and ambition, such
   irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled
   passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such
   inconstancy of conduct, that we find ourselves alternately attracted
   and repelled by his character, and now filled with admiration for his
   greatness, now with contempt or pity for his weakness.

   Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus was born at Stridon, [353] on the
   borders of Dalmatia, not far from Aquileia, between the years 331 and
   342. [354] He was the son of wealthy Christian parents, and was
   educated in Rome under the direction of the celebrated heathen
   grammarian Donatus, and the rhetorician Victorinus. He read with great
   diligence and profit the classic poets, orators, and philosophers, and
   collected a considerable library. On Sundays he visited, with Bonosus
   and other young friends, the subterranean graves of the martyrs, which
   made an indelible impression upon him. Yet he was not exempt from the
   temptations of a great and corrupt city, and he lost his chastity, as
   he himself afterward repeatedly acknowledged with pain.

   About the year 370, whether before or after his literary tour to Treves
   and Aquileia is uncertain, but at all events in his later youth, he
   received baptism at Rome and resolved thenceforth to devote himself
   wholly, in rigid abstinence, to the service of the Lord. In the first
   zeal of his conversion he renounced his love for the classics, and
   applied himself to the study of the hitherto distasteful Bible. In a
   morbid ascetic frame, he had, a few years later, that celebrated dream,
   in which he was summoned before the judgment seat of Christ, and as a
   heathen Ciceronian, [355] so severely reprimanded and scourged, that
   even the angels interceded for him from sympathy with his youth, and he
   himself solemnly vowed never again to take worldly books into his
   hands. When he woke, he still felt the stripes, which, as he thought,
   not his heated fancy, but the Lord himself had inflicted upon him.
   Hence he warns his female friend Eustochium, to whom several years
   afterward (a.d. 384) he recounted this experience, to avoid all profane
   reading: "What have light and darkness, Christ and Belial (2 Cor. vi.
   14), the Psalms and Horace, the Gospels and Virgil, the Apostles and
   Cicero, to do with one another? ... We cannot drink the cup of the Lord
   and the cup of the demons at the same time." [356] But proper as this
   warning may be against overrating classical scholarship, Jerome
   himself, in his version of the Bible and his commentaries, affords the
   best evidence of the inestimable value of linguistic and antiquarian
   knowledge, when devoted to the service of religion. That oath, also, at
   least in later life, he did not strictly keep. On the contrary, he made
   the monks copy the dialogues of Cicero, and explained Virgil at
   Bethlehem, and his writings abound in recollections and quotations of
   the classic authors. When Rufinus of Aquileia, at first his warm
   friend, but afterward a bitter enemy, cast up to him this inconsistency
   and breach of a solemn vow, he resorted to the evasion that he could
   not obliterate from his memory what he had formerly read; as if it were
   not so sinful to cite a heathen author as to read him. With more reason
   he asserted, that all was a mere dream, and a dream vow was not
   binding. He referred him to the prophets, "who teach that dreams are
   vain, and not worthy of faith." Yet was this dream afterward made
   frequent use of, as Erasmus laments, to cover monastic obscurantism.

   After his baptism, Jerome divided his life between the East and the
   West, between ascetic discipline and literary labor. He removed from
   Rome to Antioch with a few friends and his library, visited the most
   celebrated anchorets, attended the exegetical lectures of the younger
   Apollinaris in Antioch, and then (374) spent some time as an ascetic in
   the dreary Syrian desert of Chalcis. Here, like so many other hermits,
   he underwent a grevious struggle with sensuality, which he described
   ten years after with indelicate minuteness in a long letter to his
   virgin friend Eustochium. [357] In spite of his starved and emaciated
   body, his fancy tormented him with wild images of Roman banquets and
   dances of women; showing that the monastic seclusion from the world was
   by no means proof against the temptations of the flesh and the devil.
   Helpless he cast himself at the feet of Jesus, wet them with tears of
   repentance, and subdued the resisting flesh by a week of fasting and by
   the dry study of Hebrew grammar (which, according to a letter to
   Rusticus, [358] he was at that time learning from a converted Jew),
   until he found peace, and thought himself transported to the choirs of
   the angels in heaven. In this period probably falls the dream mentioned
   above, and the composition of several ascetic writings, full of heated
   eulogy of the monastic life. [359] His biographies of distinguished
   anchorets, however, are very pleasantly and temperately written. [360]
   He commends monastic seclusion even against the will of parents;
   interpreting the word of the Lord about forsaking father and mother, as
   if monasticism and Christianity were the same. "Though thy mother"--he
   writes, in 373, to his friend Heliodorus, who had left him in the midst
   of his journey to the Syrian desert--"with flowing hair and rent
   garments, should show thee the breasts which have nourished thee;
   though thy father should lie upon the threshold; yet depart thou,
   treading over thy father, and fly with dry eyes to the standard of the
   cross. This is the only religion of its kind, in this matter to be
   cruel .... The love of God and the fear of hell easily, rend the bonds
   of the household asunder. The holy Scripture indeed enjoins obedience
   to parents; but he who loves them more than Christ, loses his soul ....
   O desert, where the flowers of Christ are blooming!. O solitude, where
   the stones for the new Jerusalem are prepared! O retreat, which
   rejoices in the friendship of God! What doest thou in the world, my
   brother, with thy soul greater than the world? How long wilt thou
   remain in the shadow of roofs, and in the smoky dungeon of cities?
   Believe me, I see here more of the light." [361] The eloquent appeal,
   however, failed of the desired effect; Heliodorus entered the teaching
   order and became a bishop.

   The active and restless spirit of Jerome soon brought him again upon
   the public stage, and involved him in all the doctrinal and
   ecclesiastical controversies of those controversial times. He received
   the ordination of presbyter from the bishop Paulinus in Antioch,
   without taking charge of a congregation. He preferred the itinerant
   life of a monk and a student to a fixed office, and about 380 journeyed
   to Constantinople, where he heard the anti-Arian sermons of the
   celebrated Gregory Nazianzen, and translated the Chronicle of Eusebius
   and the homilies of Origen on Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In 382, on account
   of the Meletian schism, he returned to Rome with Paulinus and
   Epiphanius. Here he came into close connection with the bishop,
   Damasus, as his theological adviser and ecclesiastical secretary, [362]
   and was led by him into new exegetical labors, particularly the
   revision of the Latin version of the Bible, which he completed at a
   later day in the East.

   At the same time he labored in Rome with the greatest zeal, by mouth
   and pen, in the cause of monasticism, which had hitherto gained very
   little foothold there, and met with violent opposition even among the
   clergy. He had his eye mainly upon the most wealthy and honorable
   classes of the decayed Roman society, and tried to induce the
   descendants of the Scipios, the Gracchi, the Marcelli, the Camilli, the
   Anicii to turn their sumptuous villas into monastic retreats, and to
   lead a life of self-sacrifice and charity. He met with great success.
   "The old patrician races, which founded Rome, which had governed her
   during all her period of splendor and liberty, and which overcame and
   conquered the world, had expiated for four centuries, under the
   atrocious yoke of the Caesars, all that was most hard and selfish in
   the glory of their fathers. Cruelly humiliated, disgraced, and
   decimated during that long servitude, by the masters whom degenerate
   Rome had given herself, they found at last in Christian life, such as
   was practised by the monks, the dignity of sacrifice and the
   emancipation of the soul. These sons of the old Romans threw themselves
   into it with the magnanimous fire and persevering energy which had
   gained for their ancestors the empire of the world. 'Formerly,' says
   St. Jerome, 'according to the testimony of the apostles, there were few
   rich, few noble, few powerful among the Christians. Now it is no longer
   so. Not only among the Christians, but among the monks are to be found
   a multitude of the wise, the noble, and the rich.'... The monastic
   institution offered them a field of battle where the struggles and
   victories of their ancestors could be renewed and surpassed for a
   loftier cause, and over enemies more redoubtable. The great men whose
   memory hovered still over degenerate Rome had contended only with men,
   and subjugated only their bodies; their descendants undertook to strive
   with devils, and to conquer souls .... God called them to be the
   ancestors of a new people, gave them a new empire to found, and
   permitted them to bury and transfigure the glory of their forefathers
   in the bosom of the spiritual regeneration of the world." [363]

   Most of these distinguished patrician converts of Jerome were
   women--such widows as Marcella, Albinia, Furia, Salvina, Fabiola,
   Melania, and the most illustrious of all, Paula, and her family; or
   virgins, as Eustochium, Apella, Marcellina, Asella, Felicitas, and
   Demetrias. He gathered them as a select circle around him; he expounded
   to them the Holy Scriptures, in which some of these Roman ladies were
   very well read; he answered their questions of conscience; he incited
   them to celibate life, lavish beneficence, and enthusiastic asceticism;
   and flattered their spiritual vanity by extravagant praises. He was the
   oracle, biographer, admirer, and eulogist of these holy women, who
   constituted the spiritual nobility of Catholic Rome. Even the senator
   Pammachius, son in-law to Paula and heir to her fortune, gave his goods
   to the poor, exchanged the purple for the cowl, exposed himself to the
   mockery of his colleagues, and became, in the flattering language of
   Jerome, the general in chief of Roman monks, the first of monks in the
   first of cities. [364] Jerome considered second marriage incompatible
   with genuine holiness; even depreciated first marriage, except so far
   as it was a nursery of brides of Christ; warned Eustochium against all
   intercourse with married women; and hesitated not to call the mother of
   a bride of Christ, like Paula, a "mother-in-law of God." [365]

   His intimacy with these distinguished women, whom he admired more,
   perhaps, than they admired him, together with his unsparing attacks
   upon the immoralities of the Roman clergy and of the higher classes,
   drew upon him much unjust censure and groundless calumny, which he met
   rather with indignant scorn and satire than with quiet dignity and
   Christian meekness. After the death of his patron Damasus, a.d. 384, he
   left Rome, and in August, 385, with his brother Paulinian, a few monks,
   Paula, and her daughter Eustochium, made a pilgrimage "from Babylon to
   Jerusalem, that not Nebuchadnezzar, but Jesus, should reign over him."
   With religious devotion and inquiring mind he wandered through the holy
   places of Palestine, spent some time in Alexandria, where he heard the
   lectures of the celebrated Didymus; visited the cells of the Nitrian
   mountain; and finally, with his two female friends, in 386, settled in
   the birthplace of the Redeemer, to lament there, as he says, the sins
   of his youth, and to secure himself against others.

   In Bethlehem he presided over a monastery till his death, built a
   hospital for all strangers except heretics, prosecuted his literary
   studies without cessation, wrote several commentaries, and finished his
   improved Latin version of the Bible--the noblest monument of his
   life--but entangled himself in violent literary controversies, not only
   with opponents of the church orthodoxy like Helvidius (against whom he
   had appeared before, in 384), Jovinian, Vigilantius, and Pelagius, but
   also with his long-tried friend Rufinus, and even with Augustine. [366]
   Palladius says, his jealousy could tolerate no saint beside himself,
   and drove many pious monks away from Bethlehem. He complained of the
   crowds of monks whom his fame attracted to Bethlehem. [367] The remains
   of the Roman nobility, too, ruined by the sack of Rome, fled to him for
   food and shelter. At the last his repose was disturbed by incursions of
   the barbarian Huns and the heretical Pelagians. He died in 419 or 420,
   of fever, at a great age. His remains were afterward brought to the
   Roman basilica of Maria Maggiore, but were exhibited also and
   superstitiously venerated in several copies in Florence, Prague,
   Clugny, Paris, and the Escurial. [368]

   The Roman church has long since assigned him one of the first places
   among her standard teachers and canonical saints. Yet even some
   impartial Catholic historians venture to admit and disapprove his
   glaring inconsistencies and violent passions. The Protestant love of
   truth inclines to the judgment, that Jerome was indeed an accomplished
   and most serviceable scholar and a zealous enthusiast for all which his
   age counted holy, but lacking in calm self-control and proper depth of
   mind and character, and that he reflected, with the virtues, the
   failings also of his age and of the monastic system. It must be said to
   his credit, however, that with all his enthusiastic zeal and admiration
   for monasticism, he saw with a keen eye and exposed with unsparing hand
   the false monks and nuns, and painted in lively colors the dangers of
   melancholy, hypochondria, the hypocrisy and spiritual pride, to which
   the institution was exposed. [369]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [352] As he himself boasts in his second apology to Rufinus: "Ego
   philosophus(?), rhetor, grammaticus, dialecticus, hebraeus, graecus,
   latinus, trilinguis." The celebrated Erasmus, the first editor of his
   works, and a very competent judge in matters of literary talent and
   merit, places Jeromeabove all the fathers, even St. Augustine(with
   whose doctrines of free grace and predestination he could not
   sympathize), and often gives eloquent expression to his admiration for
   him. In a letter to Pope Leo X. (Ep. ii. 1, quoted in Vallarsi's ed. of
   Jerome's works, tom. xi. 290), he says: "Divus Hieronymus sic apud
   Latinos est theologorum princeps, ut hunc prope solum habeamus theologi
   dignum nomine. Non quod caeteros damnem, sed quod illustres alioqui, si
   cum hoc conferantur, ob huius eminentiam velut obscurentur. Denique tot
   egregiis est cumulatus dotibus, ut vix ullum habeat et ipsa docta
   Graecia, quem cum hoc viro quest componere. Quantum in illo Romanae
   facundiae! quanta linguarum peritia! quanta omnis antiquitatis omnium
   historiarum notitia! quam fida memoria! quam felix rerum omnium mixtum!
   quam absoluta mysticarum literarum cognitio! super omnia, quis ardor
   ille, quam admirabilis divini pectoris afflatus? ut una et plurimum
   delectet eloquentia, et doceat eruditione, et rapiat sanctimonia."

   [353] Hence called Stridonensis; also in distinction from the
   contemporary but little known Greek Jerome, who was probably a
   presbyter in Jerusalem.

   [354] Martianay, Stilting, Cave, Schröckh, Hagenbach, and others, place
   his birth, according to Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 331, in the year 331;
   Baronius, Du Pin, and Tillemont, with greater probability, in the year
   342. The last infers from various circumstances, that Jeromelived, not
   ninety-one years, as Prosper states, but only seventy-eight. Vallarsi
   (t. xi. 8) places his birth still later, in the year 346. His death is
   placed in the year 419 or 420.

   [355] "Mentiris," said the Lord to him, when Jeromecalled himself a
   Christian, Ciceronianus es, non Christianus, ubi enim thesaurus tuus
   ibi et cor tuum." Ep. xxii. ad Eustochium, "De custodia virginitatis
   "(tom. i. p. 113). C. A. Heumann has written a special treatise, De
   ecstasi Hieronymi anti-Ciceroniana. Comp. also Schröckh, vol. vii. p.
   35 sqq., and Ozanam: " Civilisation au 5e Siècle," i. 301.

   [356] Ep. xxii. ed. Vall. i. 112).

   [357] Ep. xxii. (i. p. 91, ed. Vallars.)

   [358] Ep. cxxv., ed. Vallars. (al. 95 or 4.)

   [359] De laude vitae solitariae, Ep. xiv. (tom. i. 28-36) ad
   Heliodorum. The Roman lady Fabiola learned this letter by heart, and Du
   Pin calls it a masterpiece of eloquence (Nouv. Bibl. des auteurs eccl.
   iii. 102), but it is almost too declamatory and turgid. He himself
   afterward acknowledged it overdrawn.

   [360] Gibbon says of them: "The stories of Paul, Hilarion, and Malchus
   are admirably told; and the only defect of these pleasing compositions
   is the want of truth and common sense."

   [361] Ep. xiv. (t. i. 29 sq.) Similar descriptions of the attractions
   of monastic life we meet with in the ascetic writings of Gregory,
   Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cassian, Nilus, and Isidor. "So great
   grace," says the venerable monk Nilus of Mount Sinai, in the beginning
   of the fifth century (Ep. lib. i Ep. 1, as quoted by Neander, Am. ed.
   ii. 250), "so great grace his God bestowed on the monks, even in
   anticipation of the future world, that they wish for no honors from
   men, and feel no longing after the greatness of this world; but, on the
   contrary, often seek rather to remain concealed from men: while, on the
   other hand, many of the great, who possess all the glory of the world,
   either of their own accord, or compelled by misfortune, take refuge
   with the lowly monks, and, delivered from fatal dangers, obtain at once
   a temporal and an eternal salvation."

   [362] As we infer from a remark of Jeromein Ep. cxxiii. c. 10, written
   a. 409 (ed. Vallars. i. p. 901): "Ante annos plurimos, quum in chartis
   ecclesiasticis" (i.e. probably in ecclesiastical documents; though
   Schröckh, viii. p. 122, refers it to the Holy Scriptures, appealing to
   a work of Bonamici unknown to me), "juvarem Damasum, Romanae urbis
   episcopum, et orientis atque occidentis synodicis consultationibus
   responderem," etc. The latter words, which Schröckh does not quote,
   favor the common interpretation.

   [363] Montalembert, himself the scion of an old noble family in France,
   l.c. i. p. 388 sq. Comp. Hieron., Epist. lxvi. ad Pammachium, de obit.
   Paulinae (ed. Vallars. i. 391 sqq.).

   [364] In one of his Epist. ad Pammach.: "Primus inter monachos in prima
   urbe ... archistrategos monachorum."

   [365] Ep. xxii. ad Eustochium, "de custodia virginitatis." Even Rufinus
   was shocked at the profane, nay, almost blasphemous expression, socrus
   Dei, and asked him from what heathen poet he had stolen it.

   [366] His controversy with Augustineon the interpretation of Gal. ii.
   14 is not unimportant as an index of the moral character of the two
   most illustrous Latin fathers of the church. Jeromesaw in the account
   of the collision between Paul and Peter, in Antioch, an artifice of
   pastoral prudence, and supposed that Paul did not there reprove the
   senior apostle in earnest, but only for effect, to reclaim the Jews
   from their wrong notions respecting the validity of the ceremonial law.
   Augustine's delicate sense of truth was justly offended by this
   exegesis, which, to save the dignity of Peter, ascribed falsehood to
   Paul, and he expressed his opinion to Jerome, who, however, very
   loftily made him feel his smaller grammatical knowledge. But they
   afterward became reconciled. Comp. on this dispute the letters on both
   sides, in Hieron. Opera, ed. Vall. tom. i. 632 sqq., and the treatise
   of Möhler, in his "Vermischte Schriften," vol. i. p. 1-18.

   [367] "Tantis de toto orbe confluentibus obruimur turbis monachorum."

   [368] The Jesuit Stilting, the author of the Vita Hieron. in the Acta
   Sanctorum, devotes nearly thirty folio pages to accounts of the
   veneration paid to him and his relics after his death.

   [369] Most Roman Catholic biographers, as Martianay, Vallarsi,
   Stilting, Dolci, and even the Anglican Cave, are unqualified eulogists
   of Jerome. See also the "Selecta Veterum testimonia de Hieronymo
   ejusque scriptis," in Vallarsi's edition, tom. xi. pp. 282-300.
   Tillemont, however, who on account of his Jansenist proclivity
   sympathizes more with Augustine, makes a move toward a more enlightened
   judgment, for which Stilting sharply reproves him. Montalembert (l.c.
   i. 402) praises him as a man of genius, inspired by zeal and subdued by
   penitence, of ardent faith and immense resources of knowledge; yet he
   incidentally speaks also of his "almost savage impetuosity of temper,"
   and "that inexhaustible vehemence which sometimes degenerated into
   emphasis and affectation." Dr. John H. Newman, in his opinion before
   his transition from Puseyism to Romanism, exhibits the conflict in
   which the moral feeling is here involved with the authority of the
   Roman Church: "I do not scruple to say, that, were he not a saint,
   there are things in his writings and views from which I should shrink;
   but as the case stands, I shrink rather from putting myself in
   opposition to something like a judgment of the catholic(?) world in
   favor of his saintly perfection." (Church of the Fathers, 263, cited by
   Robertson.) Luther also here boldly broke through tradition, but,
   forgetful of the great value of the Vulgate even to his German version
   of the Bible, went to the opposite extreme of unjust derogation,
   expressing several times a distinct antipathy to this church father,
   and charging him with knowing not how to write at all of Christ, but
   only of fasts, virginity, and useless monkish exercises. Le Clerc
   exposed his defects with thorough ability, but unfairly, in his
   "Quaestiones Hieronymianae" (Amstel. 1700, over 500 pages). Mosheim and
   Schröckh are more mild, but the latter considers it doubtful whether
   Jeromedid Christianity more good than harm. Among later Protestant
   historians opinion has become somewhat more favorable, though rather to
   his learning than to his moral character, which betrays in his letters
   and controversial writings too many unquestionable weaknesses.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 42. St. Paula.

   Hieronymus: Epitaphium Paulae matris, ad Eustochium virginem, Ep.
   cviii. (ed. Vallarsi, Opera, tom. i. p. 684 sqq.; ed. Bened. Ep.
   lxxxvi). Also the Acta Sanctorum, and Butler's Lives of Saints, sub
   Jan. 26.

   Of Jerome's many female disciples, the most distinguished is St. Paula,
   the model of a Roman Catholic nun. With his accustomed extravagance, he
   opens his eulogy after her death, in. 404, with these words: "If all
   the members of my body were turned into tongues, and all my joints were
   to utter human voices, I should be unable to say anything worthy of the
   holy and venerable Paula."

   She was born in 347, of the renowned stock of the Scipios and Gracchi
   and Paulus Aemilius, [370] and was already a widow of six and thirty
   years, and the mother of five children, when, under the influence of
   Jerome, she renounced all the wealth and honors of the world, and
   betook herself to the most rigorous ascetic life. Rumor circulated
   suspicion, which her spiritual guide, however, in a letter to Asella,
   answered with indignant rhetoric: "Was there, then, no other matron in
   Rome, who could have conquered my heart, but that one, who was always
   mourning and fasting, who abounded in dirt, [371] who had become almost
   blind with weeping, who spent whole nights in prayer, whose song was
   the Psalms, whose conversation was the gospel, whose joy was
   abstemiousness, whose life was fasting? Could no other have pleased me,
   but that one, whom I have never seen eat? Nay, verily, after I had
   begun to revere her as her chastity deserved, should all virtues have
   at once forsaken me?" He afterward boasts of her, that she knew the
   Scriptures almost entirely by memory; she even learned Hebrew, that she
   might sing the psalter with him in the original; and continually
   addressed exegetical questions to him, which he himself could answer
   only in part.

   Repressing the sacred feelings of a mother, she left her daughter
   Ruffina and her little son Toxotius, in spite of their prayers and
   tears, in the city, of Rome, [372] met Jerome in Antioch, and made a
   pilgrimage to Palestine and Egypt. With glowing devotion, she knelt
   before the rediscovered cross, as if the Lord were still hanging upon
   it; she kissed the stone of the resurrection which the angel rolled
   away; licked with thirsty tongue the pretended tomb of Jesus, and shed
   tears of joy as she entered the stable and beheld the manger of
   Bethlehem. In Egypt she penetrated into the desert of Nitria,
   prostrated herself at the feet of the hermits, and then returned to the
   holy land and settled permanently in the birthplace of the Saviour. She
   founded there a monastery for Jerome, whom she supported, and three
   nunneries, in which she spent twenty years as abbess, until 404.

   She denied herself flesh and wine, performed, with her daughter
   Eustochium, the meanest services, and even in sickness slept on the
   bare ground in a hair shirt, or spent the whole night in prayer. "I
   must," said she, "disfigure my face, which I have often, against the
   command of God, adorned with paint; torment the body, which has
   participated in many idolatries; and atone for long laughing by
   constant weeping." Her liberality knew no bounds. She wished to die in
   beggary, and to be buried in a shroud which did not belong to her. She
   left to her daughter (she died in 419) a multitude of debts, which she
   had contracted at a high rate of interest for benevolent purposes.
   [373]

   Her obsequies, which lasted a week, were attended by the bishops of
   Jerusalem and other cities of Palestine, besides clergy, monks, nuns,
   and laymen innumerable. Jerome apostrophizes her: "Farewell, Paula, and
   help with prayer the old age of thy adorer!"
     __________________________________________________________________

   [370] Her father professed to trace his genealogy to Agamemnon, and her
   husband to Aeneas.

   [371] This want of cleanliness, the inseparable companion of ancient
   ascetic holiness, is bad enough in monks, but still more intolerable
   and revolting in nuns.

   [372] "Nesciebat se matrem," says Jerome, "ut Christi probaret
   ancillam." Revealing the conflict of monastic sanctity with the natural
   virtues which God has enjoined. Montalembert, also, quotes this
   objectionable passage with apparent approbation.

   [373] Jeromesays, Eustochium hoped to pay the debts of her
   mother--probably by the help of others. Fuller justly remarks:
   "Liberality should have banks, as well as a stream."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 43. Benedict of Nursia.

   Gregorius M.: Dialogorum, l. iv. (composed about 594; lib. ii. contains
   the biography of St. Benedict according to the communications of four
   abbots and disciples of the saint, Constantine, Honoratus, Valentinian,
   and Simplicius, but full of surprising miracles). Mabillon and other
   writers of the Benedictine congregation of St. Maurus: Acta Sanctorum
   ordinis S. Benedicti in saeculorum classes distributa, fol. Par.
   1668-1701, 9 vols. (to the year 1100), and Annales ordinis S. Bened.
   Par. 1703-'39, 6 vols. fol. (to 1157). Dom (Domnus) Jos. De Mège: Vie
   de St. Benoit, Par. 1690. The Acta Sanctorum, and Butler, sub Mart. 21.
   Montalembert: The Monks of the West, vol. ii. book iv.

   Benedict of Nursia, the founder of the celebrated order which bears his
   name, gave to the Western monasticism a fixed and permanent form, and
   thus carried it far above the Eastern with its imperfect attempts at
   organization, and made it exceedingly profitable to the practical, and,
   incidentally, also to the literary interests of the Catholic Church. He
   holds, therefore, the dignity of patriarch of the Western monks. He has
   furnished a remarkable instance of the incalculable influence which a
   simple but judicious moral rule of life may exercise on many centuries.

   Benedict was born of the illustrious house of Anicius, at Nursia (now
   Norcia) in Umbria, about the year 480, at the time when the political
   and social state of Europe was distracted and dismembered, and
   literature, morals, and religion seemed to be doomed to irremediable
   ruin. He studied in Rome, but so early as his fifteenth year he fled
   from the corrupt society of his fellow students, and spent three years
   in seclusion in a dark, narrow, and inaccessible grotto at Subiaco.
   [374] A neighboring monk, Romanus, furnished him from time to time his
   scanty food, letting it down by a cord, with a little bell, the sound
   of which announced to him the loaf of bread. He there passed through
   the usual anchoretic battles with demons, and by prayer and ascetic
   exercises attained a rare power over nature. At one time, Pope Gregory
   tells us, the allurements of voluptuousness so strongly tempted his
   imagination that he was on the point of leaving his retreat in pursuit
   of a beautiful woman of previous acquaintance; but summoning up his
   courage, he took off his vestment of skins and rolled himself naked on
   thorns and briers, near his cave, until the impure fire of sensual
   passion was forever extinguished. Seven centuries later, St. Francis of
   Assisi planted on that spiritual battle field two rose trees, which
   grew and survived the Benedictine thorns and briers. He gradually
   became known, and was at first taken for a wild beast by the
   surrounding shepherds, but afterward reverenced as a saint.

   After this period of hermit life he began his labors in behalf of the
   monastery proper. In that mountainous region he established in
   succession twelve cloisters, each with twelve monks and a superior,
   himself holding the oversight of all. The persecution of an unworthy
   priest caused him, however, to leave Subiaco and retire to a wild but
   picturesque mountain district in the Neapolitan province, upon the
   boundaries of Samnium and Campania. There he destroyed the remnants of
   idolatry, converted many of the pagan inhabitants to Christianity by
   his preaching and miracles, and in the year 529, under many
   difficulties, founded upon the ruins of a temple of Apollo the renowned
   cloister of Monte Cassino, [375] the alma mater and capital of his
   order. Here he labored fourteen years, till his death. Although never
   ordained to the priesthood, his life there was rather that of a
   missionary and apostle than of a solitary. He cultivated the soil, fed
   the poor, healed the sick, preached to the neighboring population,
   directed the young monks, who in increasing numbers flocked to him, and
   organized the monastic life upon a fixed method or rule, which he
   himself conscientiously observed. His power over the hearts, and the
   veneration in which he was held, is illustrated by the visit of Totila,
   in 542, the barbarian king, the victor of the Romans and master of
   Italy, who threw himself on his face before the saint, accepted his
   reproof and exhortations, asked his blessing, and left a better man,
   but fell after ten years' reign, as Benedict had predicted, in a great
   battle with the Graeco-Roman army under Narses. Benedict died, after
   partaking of the holy communion, praying, in standing posture, at the
   foot of the altar, on the 21st of March, 543, and was buried by the
   side of his sister, Scholastica, who had established, a nunnery near
   Monte Cassino and died a few weeks before him. They met only once a
   year, on the side of the mountain, for prayer and pious conversation.
   On the day of his departure, two monks saw in a vision a shining
   pathway of stars leading from Monte Cassino to heaven, and heard a
   voice, that by this road Benedict, the well beloved of God, had
   ascended to heaven.

   His credulous biographer, Pope Gregory I., in the second book of his
   Dialogues, ascribes to him miraculous prophecies and healings, and even
   a raising of the dead. [376] With reference to his want of secular
   culture and his spiritual knowledge, he calls him a learned ignorant
   and an unlettered sage. [377] At all events he possessed the genius of
   a lawgiver, and holds the first place among the founders of monastic
   orders, though his person and life are much less interesting than those
   of a Bernard of Clairvaux, a Francis of Assisi, and an Ignatius of
   Loyola. [378]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [374] In Latin Sublaqueum, or Sublacum, in the States of the Church,
   over thirty English miles (Butler says "near forty," Montalembert, ii.
   7, "fifty miles") east of Rome, on the Teverone. Butler describes the
   place as "a barren, hideous chain of rocks, with a river and lake in
   the valley."

   [375] Monasterium Cassinense. It was destroyed, indeed, by the
   Lombards, as early as 583, as Benedictis said to have predicted it
   would be, but was rebuilt in 731, consecrated in 748, again destroyed
   by the Saracens in 857, rebuilt about 950, and more completely, after
   many other calamities, in 1649, consecrated for the third time by
   BenedictXIII. in 1727, enriched and increased under the patronage of
   the emperors and popes, but in modern times despoiled of its enormous
   income (which at the end of the sixteenth century was reckoned at
   500,000 ducats), and has stood through all vicissitudes to this day. In
   the days of its splendor, when the abbot was first baron of the kingdom
   of Naples, and commanded over four hundred towns and villages, it
   numbered several hundred monks, but in 1843 only twenty. It has a
   considerable library. Montalembert (l.c. ii. 19) calls Monte Cassino
   "the most powerful and celebrated monastery in the Catholic universe;
   celebrated especially because there Benedictwrote his rule and formed
   the type which was to serve as a model to innumerable communities
   submitted to that sovereign code." He also quotes the poetic
   description from Dante's Paradiso. Dom Luigi Tosti published at Naples,
   in 1842, a full history of this convent, in three volumes.

   [376] Gregor. Dial. ii. 37.

   [377] "Scienter nesciens, et sapienter indoctus."

   [378] Butler, l.c., compares him even with Moses and Elijah. "Being
   chosen by God, like another Moses, to conduct faithful souls into the
   true promised land, the kingdom of heaven, he was enriched with eminent
   supernatural gifts, even those of miracles and prophecy. He seemed,
   like another Eliseus, endued by God with an extraordinary power,
   commanding all nature, and, like the ancient prophets, foreseeing
   future events. He often raised the sinking courage of his monks, and
   baffled the various artifices of the devil with the sign of the cross,
   rendered the heaviest stone light, in building his monastery, by a
   short prayer, and, in presence of a multitude of people, raised to life
   a novice who had been crushed by the fall of a wall at Monte Cassino."
   Montalembert omits the more extraordinary miracles, except the
   deliverance of Placidus from the whirlpool, which he relates in the
   language of Bossuet, ii. 15.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 44. The Rule of St. Benedict.

   The Regula Benedicti has been frequently edited and annotated, best by
   Holstenius: Codex reg. Monast. tom. i. p. 111-135; by Dom Marténe:
   Commentarius in regulam S. Benedicti literalis, moralis, historicus,
   Par. 1690, in 4to.; by Dom Calmet, Par. 1734, 2 vols.; and by Dom
   Charles Brandes (Benedictine of Einsiedeln), in 3 vols., Einsiedeln and
   New York, 1857. Gieseler gives the most important articles in his Ch.
   H. Bd. i. AbtheiI. 2, § 119. Comp. also Montalembert, l.c. ii. 39 sqq.

   The rule of St. Benedict, on which his fame rests, forms an epoch in
   the history of monasticism. In a short time it superseded all
   contemporary and older rules of the kind, and became the immortal code
   of the most illustrious branch of the monastic army, and the basis of
   the whole Roman Catholic cloister life. [379] It consists of a preface
   or prologue, and a series of moral, social, liturgical, and penal
   ordinances, in seventy-three chapters. It shows a true knowledge of
   human nature, the practical wisdom of Rome, and adaptation to Western
   customs; it combines simplicity with completeness, strictness with
   gentleness, humility with courage, and gives the whole cloister life a
   fixed unity and compact organization, which, like the episcopate,
   possessed an unlimited versatility and power of expansion. It made
   every cloister an ecclesiola in ecclesia, reflecting the relation of
   the bishop to his charge, the monarchical principle of authority on the
   democratic basis of the equality of the brethren, though claiming a
   higher degree of perfection than could be realized in the great secular
   church. For the rude and undisciplined world of the middle age, the
   Benedictine rule furnished a wholesome course of training and a
   constant stimulus to the obedience, self-control, order, and industry
   which were indispensable to the regeneration and healthy growth of
   social life. [380]

   The spirit of the rule may be judged from the following sentences of
   the prologus, which contains pious exhortations: "Having thus," he
   says, "my brethren, asked of the Lord who shall dwell in his
   tabernacle, we have heard the precepts prescribed to such a one. If we
   fulfil these conditions, we shall be heirs of the kingdom of heaven.
   Let us then prepare our hearts and bodies to fight under a holy
   obedience to these precepts; and if it is not always possible for
   nature to obey, let us ask the Lord that he would deign to give us the
   succor of his grace. Would we avoid the pains of hell and attain
   eternal life, while there is still time, while we are still in this
   mortal body, and while the light of this life is bestowed upon us for
   that purpose, let us run and strive so as to reap an eternal reward. We
   must then form a school of divine servitude, in which, we trust,
   nothing too heavy or rigorous will be established. But if, in
   conformity with right and justice, we should exercise a little severity
   for the amendment of vices or the preservation of charity, beware of
   fleeing under the impulse of terror from the way of salvation, which
   cannot but have a hard beginning. When a man has walked for some time
   in obedience and faith, his heart will expand, and he will run with the
   unspeakable sweetness of love in the way of God's commandments. May he
   grant that, never straying from the instruction of the Master, and
   persevering in his doctrine in the monastery until death, we may share
   by patience in the sufferings of Christ, and be worthy to share
   together his kingdom." [381] The leading provisions of this rule are as
   follows:

   At the head of each society stands an abbot, who is elected by the
   monks, and, with their consent, appoints a provost (praepositus), and,
   when the number of the brethren requires, deans over the several
   divisions (decaniae), as assistants. He governs, in Christ's stead, by
   authority and example, and is to his cloister, what the bishop is to
   his diocese. In the more weighty matters he takes the congregation of
   the brethren into consultation; in ordinary affairs only the older
   members. The formal entrance into the cloister must be preceded by a
   probation of novitiate of one year (subsequently it was made three
   years), that no one might prematurely or rashly take the solemn step.
   If the novice repented his resolution, he could leave the cloister
   without hindrance; if he adhered to it, he was, at the close of his
   probation, subjected to an examination in presence of the abbot and the
   monks, and then, appealing to the saints, whose relics were in the
   cloister, he laid upon the altar of the chapel the irrevocable vow,
   written or at least subscribed by his own hand, and therewith cut off
   from himself forever all return to the world.

   From this important arrangement the cloister received its stability and
   the whole monastic institution derived additional earnestness,
   solidity, and permanence.

   The vow was threefold, comprising stabilitas, perpetual adherence to
   the monastic order; conversio morum, especially voluntary poverty and
   chastity, which were always regarded as the very essence of monastic
   piety under all its forms; and obedientia coram Deo et sanctis ejus,
   absolute obedience to the abbot, as the representative of God and
   Christ. This obedience is the cardinal virtue of a monk. [382]

   The life of the cloister consisted of a judicious alternation of
   spiritual and bodily exercises. This is the great excellence of the
   rule of Benedict, who proceeded here upon the true principle, that
   idleness is the mortal enemy of the soul and the workshop of the devil.
   [383] Seven hours were to be devoted to prayer, singing of psalms, and
   meditation; [384] from two to three hours, especially on Sunday, to
   religious reading; and from six to seven hours to manual labor in doors
   or in the field, or, instead of this, to the training of children, who
   were committed to the cloister by their parents (oblati). [385]

   Here was a starting point for the afterward celebrated cloister
   schools, and for that attention to literary pursuits, which, though
   entirely foreign to the uneducated Benedict and his immediate
   successors, afterward became one of the chief ornaments of his order,
   and in many cloisters took the place of manual labor.

   In other respects the mode of life was to be simple, without extreme
   rigor, and confined to strictly necessary things. Clothing consisted of
   a tunic with a black cowl (whence the name: Black Friars); the material
   to be determined by the climate and season. On the two weekly fast
   days, and from the middle of September to Easter, one meal was to
   suffice for the day. Each monk is allowed daily a pound of bread and
   pulse, and, according to the Italian custom, half a flagon (hemina) of
   wine; though he is advised to abstain from the wine, if he can do so
   without injury to his health. Flesh is permitted only to the weak and
   sick, [386] who were to be treated with special care. During the meal
   some edifying piece was read, and silence enjoined. The individual monk
   knows no personal property, not even his simple dress as such; and the
   fruits of his labor go into the common treasury. He should avoid all
   contact with the world, as dangerous to the soul, and therefore every
   cloister should be so arranged, as to be able to carry on even the arts
   and trades necessary for supplying its wants. [387] Hospitality and
   other works of love are especially commended.

   The penalties for transgression of the rule are, first, private
   admonition, then exclusion from the fellowship of prayer, next
   exclusion from fraternal intercourse, and finally expulsion from the
   cloister, after which, however, restoration is possible, even to the
   third time.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [379] The Catholic church has recognized three other rules besides that
   of St. Benedict, viz.: 1. That of St. Basil, which is still retained by
   the Oriental monks; 2. That of St. Augustine, which is adopted by the
   regular canons, the order of the preaching brothers or Dominicans, and
   several military orders; 3. The rule of St. Francis of Assisi, and his
   mendicant order, in the thirteenth century.

   [380] Pope Gregory believed the rule of St. Benedicteven to be directly
   inspired, and Bossuet (Panégyric de Saint Benoit), in evident
   exaggeration, calls it "an epitome of Christianity, a learned and
   mysterious abridgment of all doctrines of the gospel, all the
   institutions of the holy fathers, and all the counsels of perfection."
   Montalembert speaks in a similar strain of French declamatory
   eloquence. Monasticism knows very little of the gospel of freedom, and
   resolves Christianity into a new law of obedience.

   [381] We have availed ourselves, in this extract from the preface, of
   the translation of Montalembert, ii. 44 sq.

   [382] Cap. 5: "Primus humilitatis gradus est obedientia sine mora. Haec
   convenit iis, qui nihil sibi Christo carius aliquid existimant; propter
   servitium sanctum, quod professi sunt, seu propter metum gehennae, vel
   gloriam vitae aeternae, mox ut aliquid imperatum a majore fuerit, ac si
   divinitus imperetur, moram pati nesciunt in faciendo."

   [383] Cap. 48: "Otiositas inimica est animae; et ideo certis temporibus
   occupari debent fratres in labore manuum, certis iterum horis in
   lectione divina."

   [384] The horaecanonicae are the Nocturnae vigiliae, Matutinae, Prima,
   Tertia, Sexta, Nona, Vespera, and Completorium, and are taken (c. 16)
   from a literal interpretation of Ps. cxix. 164: "Seven times a day do I
   praise thee," and v. 62: "At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto
   thee." The Psalter was the liturgy and hymn book of the convent. It was
   so divided among the seven services of the day, that the whole psalter
   should be chanted once a week.

   [385] Cap. 59: "Si quis forte de nobilibus offert filium suum Deo in
   monasterio, si ipse puer minori aetate est, parentes ejus faciant
   petitionem," etc.

   [386] Cap. 40: "Carnium quadrupedum ab omnibus abstinetur comestio,
   praeter omnino debiles et aegrotos." Even birds are excluded, which
   were at that time only delicacies for princes and nobles, as Mabillon
   shows from the contemporary testimony of Gregory of Tours.

   [387] Cap. 66: "Monasterium, si possit fieri, ita debet construi, ut
   omnia necessaria, id est, aqua, molendinum, hortus, pistrinum, vel
   artes diversae intra monasterium exerceantur, ut non sit necessitas
   monachis vagandi foras, quia omnino non expedit animabus eorum."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 45. The Benedictines. Cassiodorus.

   Benedict had no presentiment of the vast historical importance, which
   this rule, originally designed simply for the cloister of Monte
   Cassino, was destined to attain. He probably never aspired beyond the
   regeneration and salvation of his own soul and that of his brother
   monks, and all the talk of later Catholic historians about his
   far-reaching plans of a political and social regeneration of Europe,
   and the preservation and promotion of literature and art, find no
   support whatever in his life or in his rule. But he humbly planted a
   seed, which Providence blessed a hundredfold. By his rule he became,
   without his own will or knowledge, the founder of an order, which,
   until in the thirteenth century the Dominicans and Franciscans pressed
   it partially into the background, spread with great rapidity over the
   whole of Europe, maintained a clear supremacy, formed the model for all
   other monastic orders, and gave to the Catholic church an imposing
   array of missionaries, authors, artists, bishops, archbishops,
   cardinals, and popes, as Gregory the Great and Gregory VII. In less
   than a century after the death of Benedict, the conquests of the
   barbarians in Italy, Gaul, Spain were reconquered for civilization, and
   the vast territories of Great Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia
   incorporated into Christendom, or opened to missionary labor; and in
   this progress of history the monastic institution, regulated and
   organized by Benedict's rule, bears an honorable share.

   Benedict himself established a second cloister in the vicinity of
   Terracina, and two of his favorite disciples, Placidus and St. Maurus,
   [388] introduced the "holy rule," the one into Sicily, the other into
   France. Pope Gregory the Great, himself at one time a Benedictine monk,
   enhanced its prestige, and converted the Anglo-Saxons to the Roman
   Christian faith, by Benedictine monks. Gradually the rule found so
   general acceptance both in old and in new institutions, that in the
   time of Charlemagne it became a question, whether there were any monks
   at all, who were not Benedictines. The order, it is true, has
   degenerated from time to time, through the increase of its wealth and
   the decay of its discipline, but its fostering care of religion, of
   humane studies, and of the general civilization of Europe, from the
   tilling of the soil to the noblest learning, has given it an honorable
   place in history and won immortal praise. He who is familiar with the
   imposing and venerable tomes of the Benedictine editions of the
   Fathers, their thoroughly learned prefaces, biographies, antiquarian
   dissertations, and indexes, can never think of the order of the
   Benedictines without sincere regard and gratitude.

   The patronage of learning, however, as we have already said, was not
   within the design of the founder or his rule. The joining of this to
   the cloister life is duel if we leave out of view the learned monk
   Jerome, to Cassiodorus, who in 538 retired from the honors and cares of
   high civil office, in the Gothic monarchy of Italy, [389] to a
   monastery founded by himself at Vivarium [390] (Viviers), in Calabria
   in Lower Italy. Here he spent nearly thirty years as monk and abbot,
   collected a large library, encouraged the monks to copy and to study
   the Holy Scriptures, the works of the church fathers, and even the
   ancient classics, and wrote for them several literary and theological
   text-books, especially his treatise De institutione divinarum
   literarum, a kind of elementary encyclopaedia, which was the code of
   monastic education for many generations. Vivarium at one time almost
   rivalled Monte Cassino, and Cassiodorus won the honorary title of the
   restorer of knowledge in the sixth century. [391]

   The Benedictines, already accustomed to regular work, soon followed
   this example. Thus that very mode of life, which in its founder,
   Anthony, despised all learning, became in the course of its development
   an asylum of culture in the rough and stormy times of the migration and
   the crusades, and a conservator of the literary treasures of antiquity
   for the use of modern times.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [388] This Maurus, the founder of the abbacy of Glanfeuil (St. Maur sur
   Loire), is the patron saint of a branch of the Benedictines, the
   celebrated Maurians in France (dating from 1618), who so highly
   distinguished themselves in the seventeenth and early part of the
   eighteenth centuries, by their thorough archaeological and historical
   researches, and their superior editions of the Fathers. The most
   eminent of the Maurians are D. (Dom, equivalent to Domnus, Sir) Menard,
   d'Achery, Godin, Mabillon, le Nourry, Martianay, Ruinart, Martene,
   Montfaucon, Massuet, Garnier, and de la Rue, and in our time Dom Pitra,
   editor of a valuable collection of patristic fragments, at the cloister
   of Solesme.

   [389] He was the last of the Roman consuls--an office which Justinian
   abolished--and was successively the minister of Odoacer, Theodoric, and
   Athalaric, who made him prefect of the praetorium

   [390] Or Vivaria, so called from the numerous vivaria or fish ponds in
   that region.

   [391] Comp. Mabillon, Ann. Bened. l. v. c. 24, 27; F. de Ste. Marthe,
   Vie de Cassiodore, 1684.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 46. Opposition to Monasticism. Jovinian.

   I. Chrysostomus: Pros tous polemou'tas tois epi to monazein enagousin(a
   vindication of monasticism against its opponents, in three books).
   Hieronymus: Ep. 61, ad Vigilantium (ed. Vallars. tom. i. p. 345 sqq.);
   Ep. 109, ad Riparium (i. 719 sqq.); Adv. Helvidium (a.d. 383); Adv.
   Jovinianum (a.d. 392); Adv. Vigilantium (a.d. 406). All these three
   tracts are in Opera Hieron. tom. ii. p. 206-402. Augustinus: De haeres.
   cap. 82 (on Jovinian), and c. 84 (on Helvidius and the Helvidians).
   Epiphanius: Haeres. 75 (on Aerius).

   II. Chr. W. F. Walch: Ketzerhistorie (1766), part iii. p. 585 (on
   Helvidius and the Antidikomarianites); p. 635 sqq. (on Jovinian); and
   p. 673 sqq. (on Vigilantius). Vogel: De Vigilantio haeretico orthodoxo,
   Gött. 1756. G. B. Lindner: De Joviniano et Vigilantio purioris
   doctrinae antesignanis, Lips. 1839. W. S. Gilly: Vigilantius and his
   Times, Lond. 1844. Comp. also Neander: Der heil. Joh. Chrysostomus, 3d
   ed. 1848, vol. i. p. 53 sqq.; and Kirchengesch, iii. p. 508 sqq.
   (Torrey's translation, ii. p. 265 sqq.). Baur: Die christliche Kirche
   von 4-6ten Jahrh. 1859, p. 311 sqq.

   Although monasticism was a mighty movement of the age, engaging either
   the cooperation or the admiration of the whole church, yet it was not
   exempt from opposition. And opposition sprang from very different
   quarters: now from zealous defenders of heathenism, like Julian and
   Libanius, who hated and bitterly reviled the monks for their fanatical
   opposition to temples and idol-worship; now from Christian statesmen
   and emperors, like Valens, who were enlisted against it by its
   withdrawing so much force from the civil and military service of the
   state, and, in the time of peril from the barbarians, encouraging
   idleness and passive contemplation instead of active, heroic virtue;
   now from friends of worldly indulgence, who found themselves
   unpleasantly disturbed and rebuked by the religious earnestness and
   zeal of the ascetic life; lastly, however, also from a liberal, almost
   protestant, conception of Christian morality, which set itself at the
   same time against the worship of Mary and the saints, and other abuses.
   This last form of opposition, however, existed mostly in isolated
   cases, was rather negative than positive in its character, lacked the
   spirit of wisdom and moderation, and hence almost entirely disappeared
   in the fifth century, only to be revived long after, in more mature and
   comprehensive form, when monasticism had fulfilled its mission for the
   world.

   To this class of opponents belong Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, and
   Aerius. The first three are known to us through the passionate replies
   of Jerome, the last through the Panarion of Epiphanius. They figure in
   Catholic church history among the heretics, while they have received
   from many Protestant historians a place among the "witnesses of the
   truth" and the forerunners of the Reformation.

   We begin with Jovinian, the most important among them, who is sometimes
   compared, for instance, even by Neander, to Luther, because, like
   Luther, he was carried by his own experience into reaction against the
   ascetic tendency and the doctrines connected with it. He wrote in Rome,
   before the year 390 a work, now lost, attacking monasticism in its
   ethical principles. He was at that time himself a monk, and probably
   remained so in a free way until his death. At all events he never
   married, and according to Augustine's account, he abstained "for the
   present distress," [392] and from aversion to the encumbrances of the
   married state. Jerome pressed him with the alternative of marrying and
   proving the equality of celibacy with married life, or giving up his
   opposition to his own condition. [393] Jerome gives a very unfavorable
   picture of his character, evidently colored by vehement bitterness. He
   calls Jovinian a servant of corruption, a barbarous writer, a Christian
   Epicurean, who, after having once lived in strict asceticism, now
   preferred earth to heaven, vice to virtue, his belly to Christ, and
   always strode along as an elegantly dressed bridegroom. Augustine is
   much more lenient, only reproaching Jovinian with having misled many
   Roman nuns into marriage by holding before them the examples of pious
   women in the Bible. Jovinian was probably provoked to question and
   oppose monasticism, as Gieseler supposes, by Jerome's extravagant
   praising of it, and by the feeling against it, which the death of
   Blesilla (384) in Rome confirmed. And he at first found extensive
   sympathy. But he was excommunicated and banished with his adherents at
   a council about the year 390, by Siricius, bishop of Rome, who was
   zealously opposed to the marriage of priests. He then betook himself to
   Milan, where the two monks Sarmatio and Barbatian held forth views like
   his own; but he was treated there after the same fashion by the bishop,
   Ambrose, who held a council against him. From this time he and his
   party disappear from history, and before the year 406 he died in exile.
   [394]

   According to Jerome, Jovinian held these four points (1) Virgins,
   widows, and married persons, who have once been baptized into Christ,
   have equal merit, other things in their conduct being equal. (2) Those,
   who are once with full faith born again by baptism, cannot be overcome
   (subverti) by the devil. (3) There is no difference between abstaining
   from food and enjoying it with thanksgiving. (4) All, who keep the
   baptismal covenant, will receive an equal reward in heaven.

   He insisted chiefly on the first point; so that Jerome devotes the
   whole first book of his refutation to this point, while he disposes of
   all the other heads in the second. In favor of the moral equality of
   married and single life, he appealed to Gen. ii. 24, where God himself
   institutes marriage before the fall; to Matt. xix. 5, where Christ
   sanctions it; to the patriarchs before and after the flood; to Moses
   and the prophets, Zacharias and Elizabeth, and the apostles,
   particularly Peter, who lived in wedlock; also to Paul, who himself
   exhorted to marriage, [395] required the bishop or the deacon to be the
   husband of one wife, [396] and advised young widows to marry and bear
   children. [397] He declared the prohibition of marriage and of divinely
   provided food a Manichaean error. To answer these arguments, Jerome
   indulges in utterly unwarranted inferences, and speaks of marriage in a
   tone of contempt, which gave offence even to his friends. [398]
   Augustine was moved by it to present the advantages of the married life
   in a special work, De bono conjugali, though without yielding the
   ascetic estimate of celibacy. [399]

   Jovinian's second point has an apparent affinity with the Augustinian
   and Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverantia sanctorum. It is not
   referred by him, however, to the eternal and unchangeable counsel of
   God, but simply based on 1 Jno. iii. 9, and v. 18, and is connected
   with his abstract conception of the opposite moral states. He limits
   the impossibility of relapse to the truly regenerate, who "plena fide
   in baptismate renati sunt," and makes a distinction between the mere
   baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a
   distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

   His third point is aimed against the ascetic exaltation of fasting,
   with reference to Rom. xiv. 20, and 1 Tim. iv. 3. God, he holds, has
   created all animals for the service of man; Christ attended the
   marriage feast at Cana as a guest, sat at table with Zaccheus, with
   publicans and sinners, and was called by the Pharisees a glutton and a
   wine-bibber; and the apostle says: To the pure all things are pure, and
   nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

   He went still further, however, and, with the Stoics, denied all
   gradations of moral merit and demerit, consequently also all gradations
   of reward and punishment. He overlooked the process of development in
   both good and evil. He went back of all outward relations to the inner
   mind, and lost all subordinate differences of degree in the great
   contrast between true Christians and men of the world, between
   regenerate and unregenerate; whereas, the friends of monasticism taught
   a higher and lower morality, and distinguished the ascetics, as a
   special class, from the mass of ordinary Christians. As Christ, says
   he, dwells in believers, without difference of degree, so also
   believers are in Christ without difference of degree or stages of
   development. There are only two classes of men, righteous and wicked,
   sheep and goats, five wise virgins and five foolish, good trees with
   good fruit and bad trees with bad fruit. He appealed also to the
   parable of the laborers in the vineyard, who all received equal wages.
   Jerome answered him with such things as the parable of the sower and
   the different kinds of ground, the parable of the different numbers of
   talents with corresponding rewards, the many mansions in the Father's
   house (by which Jovinian singularly understood the different churches
   on earth), the comparison of the resurrection bodies with the stars,
   which differ in glory, and the passage: "He which soweth sparingly,
   shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap
   also bountifully." [400]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [392] 1 Cor. vii. 26.

   [393] Adv. Jovin. lib. i. c. 40 (Opera, ii. 304): "Et tamen iste
   formosus monachus, crassus, nitidus, dealbatus, et quasi sponsus semper
   incedens, aut uxorem ducat ut aequalem virginitatem nuptiis probet;
   aut, si non duxerit, frustra contra nos verbis agit, cum opere nobiscum
   sit."

   [394] Augustinesays, De haer. c. 82: "Cito ista haeresis oppressa et
   extincta est;" and Jeromewrites of Jovinian, in 406, Adv. Vigilant. c.
   1, that, after having been condemned by the authority of the Roman
   church, he dissipated his mind in the enjoyment of his lusts.

   [395] 1 Cor. vii. 36, 39.

   [396] 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12.

   [397] 1 Tim. v. 14; comp. 1 Tim. ii. 15; Heb. xiii. 4.

   [398] From 1 Cor. vii. 1, for example ("It is good for a man not to
   touch a woman"), he argues, without qualification, l. i. c. 7 (Opera,
   ii. 246): "Si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum est ergo tangere,
   nihil enim bono contrarium est, nisi malum; si autem malum est, et
   ignoscitur, ideo conceditur, ne malo quid deterius fiat .... Tolle
   fornicationem, et non dicet [apostolus], unusquisque uxorem suam
   habeat."Immediately after this (ii. 247) he argues, from the
   exhortation of Paul to pray without ceasing, 1 Thess. v. 17: "Si semper
   orandum est, nunquam ergo conjugio serviendum, quoniam quotiescunque
   uxori debitum reddo, orare non possum." Such sophistries and
   misinterpretations evidently proceed upon the lowest sensual idea of
   marriage, and called forth some opposition even at that age. He himself
   afterward felt that he had gone too far, and in his Ep. 48 (ed.
   Vallars. or Ep. 30, ed. Bened.) ad Pammachium, endeavored to save
   himself by distinguishing between the gymnastic (polemically
   rhetorical) and the dogmatic mode of writing.

   [399] De bono conj. c. 8: "Duo bona sunt connubium et continentia,
   quorum alterum est melius."

   [400] 2 Cor. ix. 6.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 47. Helvidius, Vigilantius, and Aerius.

   See especially the tracts of Jerome quoted in the preceding section.

   Helvidius, whether a layman or a priest at Rome it is uncertain, a
   pupil, according to the statement of Gennadius, of the Arian bishop
   Auxentius of Milan, wrote a work, before the year 383, in refutation of
   the perpetual virginity of the mother of the Lord--a leading point with
   the current glorification of celibacy. He considered the married state
   equal in honor and glory to that of virginity. Of his fortunes we know
   nothing. Augustine speaks of Helvidians, who are probably identical
   with the Antidicomarianites of Epiphanius. Jerome calls Helvidius,
   indeed, a rough and uneducated man, [401] but proves by quotations of
   his arguments, that he had at least some knowledge of the Scriptures,
   and a certain ingenuity. He appealed in the first place to Matt. i. 18,
   24, 25, as implying that Joseph knew his wife not before, but after,
   the birth of the Lord; then to the designation of Jesus as the "first
   born" son of Mary, in Matt. i. 25, and Luke ii. 7; then to the many
   passages, which speak of the brothers and sisters of Jesus; and finally
   to the authority of Tertullian and Victorinus. Jerome replies, that the
   "till" by no means always fixes a point after which any action must
   begin or cease; [402] that, according to Ex. xxxiv. 19, 20; Num. xviii.
   15 sqq., the "first born" does not necessarily imply the birth of other
   children afterward, but denotes every one, who first opens the womb;
   that the "brothers" of Jesus may have been either sons of Joseph by a
   former marriage, or, according to the wide Hebrew use of the term,
   cousins; and that the authorities cited were more than balanced by the
   testimony of Ignatius, Polycarp(?), and Irenaeus. "Had Helvidius read
   these," says he, "he would doubtless have produced something more
   skilful."

   This whole question, it is well known, is still a problem in exegesis.
   The perpetua virginitas of Mary has less support from Scripture than
   the opposite theory. But it is so essential to the whole ascetic
   system, that it became from this time an article of the Catholic faith,
   and the denial of it was anathematized as blasphemous heresy. A
   considerable number of Protestant divines, [403] however, agree on this
   point with the Catholic doctrine, and think it incompatible with the
   dignity of Mary, that, after the birth of the Son of God and Saviour of
   the world, she should have borne ordinary children of men.

   Vigilantius, originally from Gaul, [404] a presbyter of Barcelona in
   Spain, a man of pious but vehement zeal, and of literary talent, wrote
   in the beginning of the fifth century against the ascetic spirit of the
   age and the superstition connected with it. Jerome's reply, dictated
   hastily in a single night at Bethlehem in the year 406, contains more
   of personal abuse and low witticism, than of solid argument. "There
   have been," he says, "monsters on earth, centaurs, syrens, leviathans,
   behemoths .... Gaul alone has bred no monsters, but has ever abounded
   in brave and noble men,--when, of a sudden, there has arisen one
   Vigilantius, who should rather be called Dormitantius, [405] contending
   in an impure spirit against the Spirit of Christ, and forbidding to
   honor the graves of the martyrs; he rejects the Vigils--only at Easter
   should we sing hallelujah; he declares abstemiousness to be heresy, and
   chastity a nursery of licentiousness (pudicitiam, libidinis seminarium)
   .... This innkeeper of Calagurris [406] mingles water with the wine,
   and would, according to ancient art, combine his poison with the
   genuine faith. He opposes virginity, hates chastity, cries against the
   fastings of the saints, and would only amidst jovial feastings amuse
   himself with the Psalms of David. It is terrible to bear, that even
   bishops are companions of his wantonness, if those deserve this name,
   who ordain only married persons deacons, and trust not the chastity of
   the single." [407] Vigilantius thinks it better for a man to use his
   money wisely, and apply it gradually to benevolent objects at home,
   than to lavish it all at once upon the poor or give it to the monks of
   Jerusalem. He went further, however, than his two predecessors, and
   bent his main efforts against the worship of saints and relics, which
   was then gaining ascendency and was fostered by monasticism. He
   considered it superstition and idolatry. He called the Christians, who
   worshipped the "wretched bones" of dead men, ash-gatherers and
   idolaters. [408] He expressed himself sceptically respecting the
   miracles of the martyrs, contested the practice of invoking them and of
   intercession for the dead, as useless, and declared himself against the
   Vigils, or public worship in the night, as tending to disorder and
   licentiousness. This last point Jerome admits as a fact, but not as an
   argument, because the abuse should not abolish the right use.

   The presbyter Aerius of Sebaste, about 360, belongs also among the
   partial opponents of monasticism. For, though himself an ascetic, he
   contended against the fast laws and the injunction of fasts at certain
   times, considering them an encroachment upon Christian freedom.
   Epiphanius also ascribes to him three other heretical views: denial of
   the superiority of bishops to presbyters, opposition to the usual
   Easter festival, and opposition to prayers for the dead. [409] He was
   hotly persecuted by the hierarchy, and was obliged to live, with his
   adherents, in open fields and in caves.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [401] At the very beginning of his work against him, he styles him
   "hominem rusticum et vix primis quoque imbutum literis."

   [402] Comp. Matt. xxviii. 20.

   [403] Luther, for instance (who even calls Helvidiusa "gross fool"),
   and Zuingle, among the Reformers; Olshausen and J. P. Lange, among the
   later theologians.

   [404] Respecting his descent, compare the diffuse treatise of the
   tedious but thorough Walch, l.c. p. 675-677.

   [405] This cheap pun he repeats, Epist. 109, ad Ripar. (Opera, i. p.
   719), where he says that Vigilantius(Wakeful) was so called kat
   antiphrasin, and should rather be called Dormitantius (Sleepy). The
   fact is, that Vigilantiuswas wide-awake to a sense of certain
   superstitions of the age

   [406] In South Gaul; now Casères in Gascogne. As the business of
   innkeeper is incompatible with the spiritual office, it has been
   supposed that the father of Vigilantiuswas a caupo Calagurritanus.
   Comp. Rössler's Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, part ix. p. 880 sq., note
   100; and Walch, l.c

   [407] Adv. Vigil.c. 1 and 2 (Opera, tom. ii. p. 387 sqq.).

   [408] "Cinerarios et idolatras, qui mortuorum ossa venerantur." Hieron.
   Ep. 109, ad Riparium (tom. i. p. 719).

   [409] Epiph. Haer. 75. Comp. also Walch, l.c. iii. 321-338. Bellarmine,
   on account of this external resemblance, styles Protestantism the
   Aerian heresy.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER V.

   THE HIERARCHY AND POLITY OF THE CHURCH.

   Comp. in part the literature in vol. i. § 105 and 110 (to which should
   be added now, P. A. de Lagarde: Constitutiones Apostolorum, Lips. and
   Lond., 1862); also Gibbon, ch. xx.; Milman: Hist. of Ancient
   Christianity, book iv. c. 1 (Amer. ed. p. 438 sqq.), and the
   corresponding sections in Bingham, Schroeckh, Plank, Neander, Gieseler,
   Baur, etc. (see the particular literature below).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 48. Schools of the Clergy.

   Having in a former section observed the elevation of the church to the
   position of the state religion of the Roman empire, and the influence
   of this great change upon the condition of the clergy and upon public
   morality, we turn now to the internal organization and the development
   of the hierarchy under its new circumstances. The step of progress
   which we here find distinguishing the organization of this third period
   from the episcopal system of the second and the apostolic supervision
   of the first, is the rise of the patriarchal constitution and of the
   system of ecumenical councils closely connected with it. But we must
   first glance at the character and influence of the teaching order in
   general.

   The work of preparation for the clerical office was, on the one hand,
   materially facilitated by the union of the church with the state,
   putting her in possession of the treasures, the schools, the learning,
   and the literature of classic heathendom, and throwing the education of
   the rising generation into her hands. The numerous doctrinal
   controversies kept the spirit of investigation awake, and among the
   fathers and bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries we meet with the
   greatest theologians of the ancient church. These gave their weighty
   voices for the great value of a thorough education to the clerical
   office, and imparted much wholesome instruction respecting the studies
   proper to this purpose. [410] The African church, by a decree of the
   council of Carthage, in 397, required of candidates a trial of their
   knowledge and orthodoxy. A law of Justinian, of the year 541,
   established a similar test in the East.

   But on the other hand, a regular and general system of clerical
   education was still entirely wanting. The steady decay of the classic
   literature, the gradual cessation of philosophical and artistic
   production, the growth of monastic prejudice against secular learning
   and culture, the great want of ministers in the suddenly expanded field
   of the church, the uneasy state of the empire, and the barbarian
   invasions, were so many hinderances to thorough theological
   preparation. Many candidates trusted to the magical virtue of
   ordination. Others, without inward call, were attracted to the holy
   office by the wealth and power of the church. Others had no time or
   opportunity for preparation, and passed, at the instance of the popular
   voice or of circumstances, immediately from the service of the state to
   that of the church, even to the episcopal office; though several
   councils prescribed a previous test of their capacity in the lower
   degrees of reader, deacon, and presbyter. Often, however, this
   irregularity turned to the advantage of the church, and gave her a
   highly gifted man, like Ambrose, whom the acclamation of the people
   called to the episcopal see of Milan even before he was baptized.
   Gregory Nazianzen laments that many priests and bishops came in fresh
   from the counting house, sunburnt from the plow, from the oar, from the
   army, or even from the theatre, so that the most holy order of all was
   in danger of becoming the most ridiculous. "Only he can be a
   physician," says he, "who knows the nature of diseases; he, a painter,
   who has gone through much practice in mixing colors and in drawing
   forms; but a clergyman may be found with perfect ease, not thoroughly
   wrought, of course, but fresh made, sown and full blown in a moment, as
   the legend says of the giants. [411] We form the saints in a day, and
   enjoin them to be wise, though they possess no wisdom at all, and bring
   nothing to their spiritual office, except at best a good will." [412]
   If such complaints were raised so early as the end of the Nicene age,
   while the theological activity of the Greek church was in its bloom,
   there was far more reason for them after the middle of the fifth
   century and in the sixth, especially in the Latin church, where, even
   among the most eminent clergymen, a knowledge of the original languages
   of the Holy Scriptures was a rare exception.

   The opportunities which this period offered for literary and
   theological preparation for the ministry, were the following:

   1. The East had four or five theological schools, which, however, were
   far from supplying its wants.

   The oldest and most celebrated was the catechetical school of
   Alexandria. Favored by the great literary treasures, the extensive
   commercial relations, and the ecclesiastical importance of the Egyptian
   metropolis, as well as by a succession of distinguished teachers, it
   flourished from the middle of the second century to the end of the
   fourth, when, amidst the Origenistic, Nestorian, and Monophysite
   confusion, it withered and died. Its last ornament was the blind, but
   learned and pious Didymus (340-395).

   From the Alexandrian school proceeded the smaller institution of
   Caesarea in Palestine, which was founded by Origen, after his
   banishment from Alexandria, and received a new but temporary impulse in
   the beginning of the fourth century from his admirer, the presbyter
   Pamphilus, and from his friend Eusebius. It possessed the theological
   library which Eusebius used in the preparation of his learned works.

   Far more important was the theological school of Antioch, founded about
   290 by the presbyters Dorotheus and Lucian. It developed in the course
   of the fourth century a severe grammatico-historical exegesis, counter
   to the Origenistic allegorical method of the Alexandrians; now in
   connection with the church doctrine, as in Chrysostom; now in a
   rationalizing spirit, as in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius.

   The seminary at Edessa, a daughter of the Antiochian school, was
   started by the learned deacon, Ephraim Syrus ( 378), furnished
   ministers for Mesopotamia and Persia, and stood for about a hundred
   years.

   The Nestorians, at the close of the fifth century, founded a seminary
   at Nisibis in Mesopotamia, which was organized into several classes and
   based upon a definite plan of instruction.

   The West had no such institutions for theological instruction, but
   supplied itself chiefly from cloisters and private schools of the
   bishops. Cassiodorus endeavored to engage Pope Agapetus in founding a
   learned institution in Rome, but was discouraged by the warlike
   disquietude of Italy. Jerome spent some time at the Alexandrian school
   under the direction of Didymus.

   2. Many priests and bishops, as we have already observed, emanated from
   the monasteries, where they enjoyed the advantages of retirement from
   the world, undisturbed meditation, the intercourse of kindred earnest
   minds, and a large spiritual experience; but, on the other hand, easily
   sank into a monkish narrowness, and rarely attained that social culture
   and comprehensive knowledge of the world and of men, which is
   necessary, especially in large cities, for a wide field of labor.

   3. In the West there were smaller diocesan seminaries, under the
   direction of the bishops, who trained their own clergy, both in theory
   and in practice, as they passed through the subordinate classes of
   reader, sub-deacon, and deacon.

   Augustine set a good example of this sort, having at Hippo a
   "monasterium clericorum," which sent forth many good presbyters and
   bishops for the various dioceses of North Africa. Similar clerical
   monasteries or episcopal seminaries arose gradually in the southern
   countries of Europe, and are very common in the Roman Catholic church
   to this day.

   4. Several of the most learned and able fathers of the fourth century
   received their general scientific education in heathen schools, under
   the setting sun of the classic culture, and then studied theology
   either in ascetic retirement or under some distinguished church
   teacher, or by the private reading of the Scriptures and the earlier
   church literature.

   Thus Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen were in the high school of
   Athens at the same time with the prince Julian the Apostate; Chrysostom
   attended the lectures of the celebrated rhetorician Libanius in
   Antioch; Augustine studied at Carthage, Rome, and Milan; and Jerome was
   introduced to the study of the classics by the grammarian Donatus of
   Rome. The great and invaluable service of these fathers in the
   development and defence of the church doctrine, in pulpit eloquence,
   and especially in the translation and exposition of the Holy
   Scriptures, is the best evidence of the high value of a classical
   education. And the church has always, with good reason, acknowledged
   it.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [410] E.g. Chrysostom: De sacerdotio; Augustine: De doctrina
   Christiana; Jerome: in several letters; Gregory the Great: Regula
   pastoralis.

   [411] Hos ho muthos poiei tous gigantas.

   [412] Greg. Orat. xliii. c. 26 (Opera omnia, ed. Bened., Paris, 1842,
   tom. i. p. 791 sq.), and similar passages in his other orations, and
   his Carmen de se ipse et advers. Episc. Comp. Ullmann: Greg. v. Naz. p.
   511 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 49. Clergy and Laity. Elections.

   The clergy, according to the precedent of the Old Testament, came to be
   more and more rigidly distinguished, as a peculiar order, from the body
   of the laity. The ordination, which was solemnized by the laying on of
   hands and prayer, with the addition at a later period of an anointing
   with oil and balsam, marked the formal entrance into the special
   priesthood, as baptism initiated into the universal priesthood; and,
   like baptism, it bore an indefeasible character (character
   indelebilis). By degrees the priestly office assumed the additional
   distinction of celibacy and of external marks, such as tonsure, and
   sacerdotal vestments worn at first only during official service, then
   in every-day life. The idea of the universal priesthood of believers
   retreated in proportion, though it never passed entirely out of sight,
   but was from time to time asserted even in this age. Augustine, for
   example, says, that as all are called Christians on account of their
   baptism, so all believers are priests, because they are members of the
   one High Priest. [413]

   The progress of the hierarchical principle also encroached gradually
   upon the rights of the people in the election of their pastors. [414]
   But in this period it did not as yet entirely suppress them. The lower
   clergy were chosen by the bishops, the bishops by their colleagues in
   the province and by the clergy. The fourth canon of Nice, probably at
   the instance of the Meletian schism, directed that a bishop should be
   instituted and consecrated by all, or at least by three, of the bishops
   of the province. This was not aimed, however, against the rights of the
   people, but against election by only one bishop--the act of Meletius.
   For the consent of the people in the choice of presbyters, and
   especially of bishops, long remained, at least in outward form, in
   memory of the custom of the apostles and the primitive church. There
   was either a formal vote, [415] particularly when there were three or
   more candidates before the people, or the people were thrice required
   to signify their confirmation or rejection by the formula: "Worthy," or
   "unworthy." [416] The influence of the people in this period appears
   most prominently in the election of bishops. The Roman bishop Leo, in
   spite of his papal absolutism, asserted the thoroughly democratic
   principle, long since abandoned by his successors: "He who is to
   preside over all, should be elected by all." [417] Oftentimes the
   popular will decided before the provincial bishops and the clergy
   assembled and the regular election could be held. Ambrose of Milan and
   Nectarius of Constantinople were appointed to the bishopric even before
   they were baptized; the former by the people, the latter by the emperor
   Theodosius; though in palpable violation of the eightieth apostolic
   canon and the second Nicene. [418] Martin of Tours owed his elevation
   likewise to the popular voice, while some bishops objected to it on
   account of his small and wasted form. [419] Chrysostom was called from
   Antioch to Constantinople by the emperor Arcadius, in consequence of a
   unanimous vote of the clergy and people. [420] Sometimes the people
   acted under outside considerations and the management of demagogues,
   and demanded unworthy or ignorant men for the highest offices. Thus
   there were frequent disturbances and collisions, and even bloody
   conflicts, as in the election of Damasus in Rome. In short, all the
   selfish passions and corrupting influences, which had spoiled the
   freedom of the popular political elections in the Grecian and Roman
   republics, and which appear also in the republics of modern times,
   intruded upon the elections of the church. And the clergy likewise
   often suffered themselves to be guided by impure motives. Chrysostom
   laments that presbyters, in the choice of a bishop, instead of looking
   only at spiritual fitness, were led by regard for noble birth, or great
   wealth, or consanguinity and friendship. [421] The bishops themselves
   sometimes did no better. Nectarius, who was suddenly transferred, in
   381, by the emperor Theodosius, from the praetorship to the bishopric
   of Constantinople, even before he was baptized, [422] wished to ordain
   his physician Martyrius deacon, and when the latter refused, on the
   ground of incapacity, he replied: "Did not I, who am now a priest,
   formerly live much more immorally than thou, as thou thyself well
   knowest, since thou wast often an accomplice of my many iniquities?"
   Martyrius, however, persisted in his refusal, because he had continued
   to live in sin long after his baptism, while Nectarius had become a new
   man since his. [423]

   The emperor also, after the middle of the fourth century, exercised a
   decisive influence in the election of metropolitans and patriarchs, and
   often abused it in a despotic and arbitrary way.

   Thus every mode of appointment was evidently exposed to abuse, and
   could furnish no security against unworthy candidates, if the electors,
   whoever they might be, were destitute of moral earnestness and the gift
   of spiritual discernment.

   Toward the end of the period before us the republican element in the
   election of bishops entirely disappeared. The Greek church after the
   eighth century vested the franchise exclusively in the bishops. [424]
   The Latin church, after the eleventh century, vested it in the clergy
   of the cathedral church, without allowing any participation to the
   people. But in the West, especially in Spain and France, instead of the
   people, the temporal prince exerted an important influence, in spite of
   the frequent protest of the church.

   Even the election of pope, after the downfall of the West Roman empire,
   came largely under control of the secular authorities of Rome; first,
   of the Ostrogothic kings; then, of the exarchs of Ravenna in the name
   of the Byzantine emperor; and, after Charlemagne, of the emperor of
   Germany; till, in 1059, through the influence of Hildebrand (afterward
   Gregory VII.), it was lodged exclusively with the college of cardinals,
   which was filled by the pope himself. Yet the papal absolutism of the
   middle age, like the modern Napoleonic military despotism in the state,
   found it well, under favorable prospects, to enlist the democratic
   principle for the advancement of its own interests.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [413] De Civit. Dei, lib. xx. cap. 10: "Erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi
   et regnabunt cum eo mille annos (Apoc. xx. 6): non utique de solis
   episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui proprie jam vocantur in
   Ecclesia sacerdotes; sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter
   mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius
   sacerdotis. De quibus apostolus Petrus: Plebs, inquit, sancta regale
   sacerdotium (1 Pet. ii. 9)." Comp. Ambrosiaster ad Eph. iv. 11; Jerome
   ad Tit. i. 7 and Pope Leo I., Sermon. iv. 1.

   [414] According to Clemens Romanus, ad Corinth. c. 44, the consent of
   the whole congregation in the choice of their officers was the
   apostolic and post-apostolic custom; and the Epistles of Cyprian,
   especially Ep. 68, show that the same rule continued in the middle of
   the third century. Comp. vol. i. § 105.

   [415] Zetesis, psephisma, psegos, scrutinium.

   [416] Axios, dignus, or anaxios, indignus. Constitut. Apost. viii. 4;
   Concil. Aurelat. ii. (A. D. 452) c. 54; Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxi.
   According to a letter of Peter of Alexandria, in Theodor. Hist. Eccl.
   iv. 22, the bishop in the East was electedepiskopon sunodo, psepho
   klerikon, aitesei laon. He himself was elected archbishop of Alexandria
   and successor of Athanasius (a.d.373), according to the desire of the
   latter, "by the unanimous consent of the clergy and of the chief men of
   the city" (iv. cap. 20), and, after his expulsion, he objected to his
   wicked successor Lucius, among other things, that "he had purchased the
   episcopal office with gold, as though it had been a secular dignity,
   ... and had not been elected by a synod of bishops, by the votes of the
   clergy, or by the request of the people, according to the regulations
   of the church" (iv. c. 22).

   [417] Epist. x. c. 4 (opera, ed. Baller. i. 637): "Expectarentur certe
   vota civium, testimonia populorum, quaereretur honoratorum arbitrium,
   electio clericorum .... In the same epistle, cap. 6: Qui praefuturus
   est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur."

   [418] Paulinus, Vita Ambros.; Sozomen, H. E. l. iv. c. 24, and vii. 8.
   This historian excuses the irregularity by a special interposition of
   Providence.

   [419] Sulpitius Severus, Vita Mart. c. 7: "Incredibilis multitudo non
   solum ex eo oppido [Tours], sed etiam ex vicinis urbibus ad suffragia
   ferenda convenerat," etc.

   [420] Socrates, H. E. vi. 2:Psephismati koino homou panton klerou te
   phemi kai laou..

   [421] De sacerdotio, lib. iii. c. 15. Further on in the same chapter he
   says even, that many are elected on account of their badness, to
   prevent the mischief they would otherwise do: Hoi de, dia, ponerian,
   [eis ten tou klerou katalegontai taxin', kai hina me, parophthentes ,
   megala ergasontai kaka. Quite parallel is the testimony of Gregory
   Nazianzen in his Carmen,eis heauton kai peri episkopon, or De se ipso
   et de episcopis, ver. 330 sqq. (Opera, ed. Bened. Par. tom. ii. p.
   796), and elsewhere.

   [422] Sozomenus, Hist. Eccl. vii. c. 8. Sozomen sees in this election a
   special interposition of God.

   [423] Sozomenus, vii. c. 10. Otherwise he, as well as Socrates, H. E.
   v. c. 8, and Theodoret, H. E. v. c. 8, speaks very favorably of the
   character of Nectarius.

   [424] The seventh ecumenical council, at Nice, 787, in its third canon,
   on the basis of a wrong interpretation of the fourth canon of the first
   council of Nice, expressly prohibited the people and the secular power
   from any share in the election of bishops. Also the eighth general
   council prescribes that the bishop should be chosen only by the college
   of bishops.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 50. Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy.

   The progress and influence of monasticism, the general exaltation of
   the ascetic life above the social, and of celibacy above the married
   state, together with the increasing sharpness of the distinction
   between clergy and laity, all tended powerfully toward the celibacy of
   the clergy. What the apostle Paul, expressly discriminating a divine
   command from a human counsel, left to each one's choice, and advised,
   in view of the oppressed condition of the Christians in the apostolic
   age, as a safer and less anxious state only for those who felt called
   to it by a special gift of grace, now, though the stress of
   circumstances was past, was made, at least in the Latin church, an
   inexorable law. What had been a voluntary, and therefore an honorable
   exception, now became the rule, and the former rule became the
   exception. Connubial intercourse appeared incompatible with the dignity
   and purity of the priestly office and of priestly functions, especially
   with the service of the altar. The clergy, as the model order, could
   not remain below the moral ideal of monasticism, extolled by all the
   fathers of the church, and must exhibit the same unconditional and
   undivided devotion to the church within the bosom of society, which
   monasticism exhibited without it. While placed by their calling in
   unavoidable contact with the world, they must vie with the monks at
   least in the virtue of sexual purity, and thereby increase their
   influence over the people. Moreover, the celibate life secured to the
   clergy greater independence toward the state and civil society, and
   thus favored the interests of the hierarchy. But, on the other hand, it
   estranged them more and more from the sympathies and domestic relations
   of the people, and tempted them to the illicit indulgence of appetite,
   which, perhaps, did more injury to the cause of Christian morality and
   to the true influence of the clergy, than the advantage of forced
   celibacy could compensate.

   In the practice of clerical celibacy, however, the Greek and the Latin
   churches diverged in the fourth century, and are to this day divided.
   The Greek church stopped halfway, and limited the injunction of
   celibacy to the higher clergy, who were accordingly chosen generally
   from the monasteries or from the ranks of widower-presbyters; while the
   Latin church extended the law to the lower clergy, and at the same time
   carried forward the hierarchical principle to absolute papacy. The
   Greek church differs from the Latin, not by any higher standard of
   marriage, but only by a closer adherence to earlier usage and by less
   consistent application of the ascetic principle. It is in theory as
   remote from the evangelical Protestant church as the Latin is, and
   approaches it only in practice. It sets virginity far above marriage,
   and regards marriage only in its aspect of negative utility. In the
   single marriage of a priest it sees in a measure a necessary evil, at
   best only a conditional good, a wholesome concession to the flesh for
   the prevention of immorality, [425] and requires of its highest office
   bearers total abstinence from all matrimonial intercourse. It wavers,
   therefore, between a partial permission and a partial condemnation of
   priestly marriage.

   In the East, one marriage was always allowed to the clergy, and at
   first even to bishops, and celibacy was left optional. Yet certain
   restrictions were early introduced, such as the prohibition of marriage
   after ordination (except in deacons and subdeacons), as well as of
   second marriage after baptism; the apostolic direction, that a bishop
   should be the husband of one wife, [426] being taken as a prohibition
   of successive polygamy, and at the same time as an allowance of one
   marriage. Besides second marriage, the marrying of a concubine, a
   widow, a harlot, a slave, and an actress, was forbidden to the clergy.
   With these restrictions, the "Apostolic Constitutions" and "Canons"
   expressly permitted the marriage of priests contracted before
   ordination, and the continuance of it after ordination. [427] The synod
   of Ancyra, in 314, permitted deacons to marry even after ordination, in
   case they had made a condition to that effect beforehand; otherwise
   they were to remain single or lose their office. [428] The Synod of New
   Caesarea, which was held at about the same time, certainly before 325,
   does not go beyond this, decreeing: "If a presbyter (not a deacon)
   marry (that is, after ordination), he shall be expelled from the
   clergy; and if he practise lewdness, or become an adulterer, he shall
   be utterly thrust out and held to penance." [429] At the general
   council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western
   bishop Hosius, [430] to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but
   the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected. A venerable
   Egyptian bishop, Paphnutius, though himself a strict ascetic from his
   youth up, and a confessor who in the last persecution had lost an eye
   and been crippled in the knee, asserted with impressiveness and
   success, that too great rigor would injure the church and promote
   licentiousness and that marriage and connubial intercourse were
   honorable and spotless things. [431] The council of Gangra in
   Paphlagonia (according to some, not till the year 380) condemned, among
   several ascetic extravagances of the bishop Eustathius of Sebaste and
   his followers, contempt for married priests and refusal to take part in
   their ministry. [432] The so-called Apostolic Canons, which, like the
   Constitutions, arose by a gradual growth in the East, even forbid the
   clergy, on pain of deposition and excommunication, to put away their
   wives under the pretext of religion. [433] Perhaps this canon likewise
   was occasioned by the hyper-asceticism of Eustathius.

   Accordingly we not unfrequently find in the Oriental church, so late as
   the fourth and fifth centuries, not only priests, but even bishops
   living in wedlock. One example is the father of the celebrated Gregory
   Nazianzen, who while bishop had two sons, Gregory and the younger
   Caesarius, and a daughter. Others are Gregory of Nyssa, who, however,
   wrote an enthusiastic eulogy of the unmarried life, and lamented his
   loss of the crown of virginity; and Synesius ( about 430), who, when
   elected bishop of Ptolemais in Pentapolis, expressly stipulated for the
   continuance of his marriage connection. [434] Socrates, whose Church
   History reaches down to the year 439, says of the practice of his time,
   that in Thessalia matrimonial intercourse after ordination had been
   forbidden under penalty of deposition from the time of Heliodorus of
   Trica, who in his youth had been an amatory writer; but that in the
   East the clergy and bishops voluntarily abstained from intercourse with
   their wives, without being required by any law to do so; for many, he
   adds, have had children during their episcopate by their lawful wives.
   [435] There were Greek divines, however, like Epiphanius, who agreed
   with the Roman theory. Justinian I. was utterly opposed to the marriage
   of priests, declared the children of such connection illegitimate, and
   forbade the election of a married man to the episcopal office (a.d.
   528). Nevertheless, down to the end of the seventh century, many
   bishops in Africa, Libya, and elsewhere, continued to live in the
   married state, as is expressly said in the twelfth canon of the Trullan
   council; but this gave offence and was forbidden. From that time the
   marriage of bishops gradually disappears, while marriage among the
   lower clergy continues to be the rule.

   This Trullan council, which was the sixth ecumenical [436] (a.d. 692),
   closes the legislation of the Eastern church on the subject of clerical
   marriage. Here--to anticipate somewhat--the continuance of a first
   marriage contracted before ordination was prohibited in the case of
   bishops on pain of deposition, but, in accordance with the Apostolic
   Constitutions and Canons, allowed in the case of presbyters and deacons
   (contrary to the Roman practice), with the Old Testament restriction,
   that they abstain from sexual intercourse during the season of official
   service, because he who administers holy things must be pure. [437] The
   same relation is thus condemned in the one case as immoral, in the
   other approved and encouraged as moral; the bishop is deposed if he
   retains his lawful wife and does not, immediately after being ordained,
   send her to a distant cloister; while the presbyter or deacon is
   threatened with deposition and even excommunication for doing the
   opposite and putting his wife away.

   The Western church, starting from the perverted and almost Manichaean
   ascetic principle, that the married state is incompatible with clerical
   dignity and holiness, instituted a vigorous effort at the end of the
   fourth century, to make celibacy, which had hitherto been left to the
   option of individuals, the universal law of the priesthood; thus
   placing itself in direct contradiction to the Levitical law, to which
   in other respects it made so much account of conforming. The law,
   however, though repeatedly enacted, could not for a long time be
   consistently enforced. The canon, already mentioned, of the Spanish
   council of Elvira in 305, was only provincial. The first prohibition of
   clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical
   authority, at least in the West, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church
   in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius,
   bishop of Tarragona in Spain, who had referred several questions of
   discipline to the Roman bishop for decision. It is significant of the
   connection between the celibacy of the clergy and the interest of the
   hierarchy, that the first properly papal decree, which was issued in
   the tone of supreme authority, imposed such an unscriptural, unnatural,
   and morally dangerous restriction. Siricius contested the appeal of
   dissenting parties to the Mosaic law, on the ground that the Christian
   priesthood has to stand not merely for a time, but perpetually, in the
   service of the sanctuary, and that it is not hereditary, like the
   Jewish; and he ordained that second marriage and marriage with a widow
   should incapacitate for ordination, and that continuance in the married
   state after ordination should be punished with deposition. [438] And
   with this punishment he threatened not bishops only, but also
   presbyters and deacons. Leo the Great subsequently, extended the
   requirement of celibacy even to the subdiaconate. The most eminent
   Latin church fathers, Ambrose, Jerome, and even Augustine--though the
   last with more moderation--advocated the celibacy of priests.
   Augustine, with Eusebius of Vercella before him (370), united their
   clergy in a cloister life, and gave them a monastic stamp; and Martin
   of Tours, who was a monk from the first, carried his monastic life into
   his episcopal office. The councils of Italy, Africa, Spain, and Gaul
   followed the lead of Rome. The synod of Clermont, for example (a.d.
   535), declared in its twelfth canon: "No one ordained deacon or priest
   may continue matrimonial intercourse. He is become the brother of her
   who was his wife. But since some, inflamed with lust, have rejected the
   girdle of the warfare [of Christ], and returned to marriage
   intercourse, it is ordered that such must lose their office forever."
   Other councils, like that of Tours, 461, were content with forbidding
   clergymen, who begat children after ordination, to administer the
   sacrifice of the mass, and with confining the law of celibacy ad
   altiorem gradum. [439]

   But the very fact of the frequent repetition of these enactments, and
   the necessity of mitigating the penalties of transgression, show the
   great difficulty of carrying this unnatural restriction into general
   effect. In the British and Irish church, isolated as it was from the
   Roman, the marriage of priests continued to prevail down to the
   Anglo-Saxon period.

   But with the disappearance of legitimate marriage in the priesthood,
   the already prevalent vice of the cohabitation of unmarried
   ecclesiastics with pious widows and virgins "secretly brought in,"
   [440] became more and more common. This spiritual marriage, which had
   begun as a bold ascetic venture, ended only too often in the flesh, and
   prostituted the honor of the church.

   The Nicene council of 325 met the abuse in its third canon with this
   decree: "The great council utterly forbids, and it shall not be allowed
   either to a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon, or any other clergyman,
   to have with him a suntheisaktos, unless she be his mother, or sister,
   or aunt, or some such person, who is beyond all suspicion." [441] This
   canon forms the basis of the whole subsequent legislation of the church
   de cohabitatione clericorum et mulierum. It had to be repeatedly
   renewed and strengthened; showing plainly that it was often disobeyed.
   The council of Toledo in Spain, a.d. 527 or 531, ordered in its third
   canon: "No clergyman, from the subdeacon upward, shall live with a
   female, be she free woman, freed woman, or slave. Only a mother, or a
   sister, or other near relative shall keep his house. If he have no near
   relative, his housekeeper must live in a separate house, and shall
   under no pretext enter his dwelling. Whosoever acts contrary to this,
   shall not only be deprived of his spiritual office and have the doors
   of his church closed, but shall also be excluded from all fellowship of
   Catholics." The Concilium Agathense in South Gaul, a.d. 506, at which
   thirty-five bishops met, decreed in the tenth and eleventh canons: "A
   clergyman shall neither visit nor receive into his house females not of
   his kin; only with his mother, or sister, or daughter, or niece may he
   live. Female slaves, also, and freed women, must be kept away from the
   house of a clergyman." Similar laws, with penalties more or less
   severe, were passed by the council of Hippo, 393, of Angers, 453, of
   Tours, 461, of Lerida in Spain, 524, of Clermont, 535, of Braga, 563,
   of Orleans, 538, of Tours, 567. [442] The emperor Justinian, in the
   twenty-third Novelle, prohibited the bishop having any woman at all in
   his house, but the Trullan council of 692 returned simply to the Nicene
   law. [443] The Western councils also made attempts to abolish the
   exceptions allowed in the Nicene canon, and forbade clergymen all
   intercourse with women, except in presence of a companion.

   This rigorism, however, which sheds an unwelcome light upon the actual
   state of things that made it necessary, did not better the matter, but
   rather led to such a moral apathy, that the Latin church in the middle
   age had everywhere to contend with the open concubinage of the clergy,
   and the whole energy of Gregory VII. was needed to restore in a measure
   the old laws of celibacy, without being sufficient to prevent the
   secret and, to morality, far more dangerous violations of it. [444] The
   later ecclesiastical legislation respecting the mulieres subintroductae
   is more lenient, and, without limiting the intercourse of clergymen to
   near kindred, generally excludes only concubines and those women "de
   quibus possit haberi suspicio." [445]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [425] 1 Cor. vii. 9.

   [426] 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; Lit. i. 6.

   [427] Lib. vi. cap. 17 (ed. Ueltzen, p. 144):episkopon kai prebuteron
   kai diakonon [thus including the bishop] eipomen monogamous
   kathistasthai... me exeinai de autois meta cheirotonian agamois housin
   eti epi gamon erchesthai, etc. Can. Apost. can. 17 (p. 241): Ho dusi
   gamois sumplakeis meta to baptisma... ou dunatai einai episkopos e
   presbuteros e diakonos e holos tou katalogou tou hieratikou. Comp. can.
   18 and can. 5.

   [428] Can. 10. Comp. Dr. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. p. 198.

   [429] Can. 1. In Harduin, tom. v. p. 1499; Hefele, Conciliengesch. i.
   211 sq. This canon passed even into the Corpus juris can. c. 9, dist.
   28.

   [430] Hosius of Cordova, who was present at the council of Elvira in
   Spain, in 305, where a similar proposition was made and carried (can.
   33). In the opinion above given, Theiner, Gieseler, Robertson, and
   Hefele agree.

   [431] See the account in Socrates, H. E. i. c. 11, where that
   proposition to prohibit priestly marriage is called an innovation, a
   nomos nearos; in Sozomen, H. E. i. c. 23; and in Gelasius, Hist. Conc.
   Nic. ii. 32. The statement is thus sufficiently accredited, and agrees
   entirely with the ancient practice of the Oriental church and the
   directions of the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons. The third canon
   of the council of Nice goes not against it, since it forbids only the
   immorality of mulieres subintroductae (comp. vol. i. § 95). The doubts
   of several Roman divines (Baronius, Bellarmine, Valesius), who would
   fain trace the celibacy of the clergy to an apostolic origin, arise
   evidently from dogmatic bias, and are sufficiently refuted by Hefele, a
   Roman Catholic historian, in his Conciliengeschichte, vol. i. p. 417
   sqq.

   [432] Comp. Hefele, l.c. i. 753 sqq.

   [433] Can. 5 (ed. Ueltzen, p. 239): Episkopos e presbuteros e diakonos
   ten heautou gun'aika me ekballeto prophasei eulabeias? ean de ekbale,
   aphorixestho, epimenon de kathaireistho. Comp. Const. Apost. vi. 17.

   [434] Declaring: "God, the law, and the consecrated hand of Theophilus
   (bishop of Alexandria), have given me a wife. I say now beforehand, and
   I protest, that I will neither ever part from her, nor live with her in
   secret as if in an unlawful connection; for the one is utterly contrary
   to religion, the other to the laws; but I desire to receive many and
   good children from her" (Epist. 105 ed. Basil., cited in the original
   Greek in Gieseler). Comp. on the instances of married bishops, Bingham,
   Christ. Antiq. b. iv. ch. 5; J. A. Theiner and A. Theiner, Die
   Einführung der erzwungenen Ehelosigkeit der christl. Geistlichen u.
   ihre Folgen (Altenburg, 1828), vol. i. p. 263 sqq., and Gieseler, vol.
   i. div. 2, § 97, notes at the close. The marriage of Gregory of Nyssa
   with Theosebia is disputed by some Roman Catholic writers, but seems
   well supported by Greg. Naz. Ep. 95, and Greg Nyss. De virg. 3.

   [435] Hist. Eccl. v. cap. 22; Ton en anatole panton gnome (i.e. from
   principle or voluntarily--according to the reading of the Florentine
   codex) apechomenon, kai ton episkopon, ei kai boulointo, ou men ananke
   nomou touto poiounton. Polloi gar auton en to kairo tes episkopes kai
   paidas ek tes nomimes gametes pepoiekasin

   [436] More precisely, the second Trullan council, held in the Trullan
   hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople; also called Concilium
   Quinisextum, sunodos penthekte, being considered a supplement to the
   fifth and sixth general councils. Comp. respecting it Hefele, iii. 298
   sqq.

   [437] 1 Can. 3, 4, and especially 12, 13, and 48. In the latter canon
   bishops are directed, after ordination, to commit their wives to a
   somewhat remote cloister, though to provide for their support.

   [438] Epist. ad Himerium Episc. Tarraconensem (in Harduin, Acta Conc.
   i. 849-850), c 7: "Hi vero, qui illiciti privilegii excusatione
   nituntur, ut sibi asserant veteri hoc lege concessum: noverint se ab
   omni ecclesiastico honore, quo indigne usi sunt, apostolicae sedis
   auctoritate dejectos .... Si quilibet episcopus, presbyter atque
   diaconus, quod non optamus, deinceps fuerit talis inventus, jam nunc
   sibi omnem per nos indulgentiae aditum intelligat obseratum: quia ferro
   necesse est excidantur vulnera, quae fomentorum non senserint
   medicinam." The exegesis of Siricius is utterly arbitrary in limiting
   the demand of holiness (Lev. xx. 7) to the priests and to abstinence
   from matrimonial intercourse, and in referring the words of Paul
   respecting walking in the flesh, Rom. viii. 8, 9, to the married life,
   as if marriage were thus incompatible with the idea of holiness. Comp.
   also the striking remarks of Greenwood, Catheda Petri, vol. i. p. 265
   sq., and Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, i. 119 (Amer. ed.), on
   Siricius.

   [439] Comp. Hefele, ii. 568, and Gieseler, l.c. (§ 97, note 7).

   [440] The so-called sorores, or mulieres subintroductae, orparthenoi
   suneisaktoi. Comp. on the origin of this practice, vol. i. § 95.

   [441] By a misinterpretation of the term suneisaktos, the sense of
   which is fixed in the usage of the early church, Baronius and
   Bellarmine erroneously find in this canon a universal law of celibacy,
   and accordingly deny the above-mentioned statement respecting
   Paphnutius. Comp. Hefele, i. 364.

   [442] Comp. the relevant canons of these and other councils in the
   second and third volumes of Hefele's Conciliengeschichte.

   [443] Can. 5: "No clergyman shall have a female in his house, but those
   allowed in the old canon (Nicaen. c. 3). Even eunuchs are to observe
   this."

   [444] "Throughout the whole period," says Milman (Hist. of Latin
   Christianity, i. 123), "from Pope Siricius to the Reformation, as must
   appear in the course of our history, the law [of clerical celibacy] was
   defied, infringed, eluded. It never obtained anything approaching to
   general observance, though its violation was at times more open, at
   times more clandestine."

   [445] So the Concilium Tridentinum, sess. xxv. de reform. cap. 14.
   Comp. also the article Subintroductae, in the 10th volume of Wetzer and
   Welte's Cath. Church Lexicon.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 51. Moral Character of the Clergy in general.

   Augustine gives us the key to the true view of the clergy of the Roman
   empire in both light and shade, when he says of the spiritual office:
   "There is in this life, and especially in this day, nothing easier,
   more delightful, more acceptable to men, than the office of bishop, or
   presbyter, or deacon, if the charge be administered superficially and
   to the pleasure of men; but nothing in the eye of God more wretched,
   mournful, and damnable. So also there is in this life, and especially
   in this day, nothing more difficult, more laborious) more hazardous
   than the office of bishop, or presbyter, or deacon; but nothing in the
   eye of God more blessed, if the battle be fought in the manner enjoined
   by our Captain." [446] We cannot wonder, on the one hand that, in the
   better condition of the church and the enlarged field of her labor, a
   multitude of light-minded and unworthy men crowded into the sacred
   office, and on the other, that just the most earnest and worthy bishops
   of the day, an Ambrose, an Augustine, a Gregory Nazianzen, and a
   Chrysostom, trembled before the responsibility of the office, and had
   to be forced into it in a measure against their will, by the call of
   the church.

   Gregory Nazianzen fled into the wilderness when his father, without his
   knowledge, suddenly consecrated him priest in the presence of the
   congregation (361). He afterward vindicated this flight in his
   beautiful apology, in which he depicts the ideal of a Christian priest
   and theologian. The priest must, above all, he says, be a model of a
   Christian, offer himself a holy sacrifice to God, and be a living
   temple of the living God. Then he must possess a deep knowledge, of
   souls, and, as a spiritual physician, heal all classes of men of
   various diseases of sin, restore, preserve, and protect the divine
   image in them, bring Christ into their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and
   make them partakers of the divine nature and of eternal salvation. He
   must, moreover, have at command the sacred philosophy or divine science
   of the world and of the worlds, of matter and spirit, of good and evil
   angels, of the all-ruling Providence, of our creation and regeneration,
   of the divine covenants, of the first and second appearing of Christ,
   of his incarnation, passion, and resurrection, of the end of all things
   and the universal judgment, and above all, of the mystery of the
   blessed Trinity; and he must be able to teach and elucidate these
   doctrines of faith in popular discourse. Gregory, sets forth Jesus as
   the perfect type of the priest, and next to him he presents in an
   eloquent picture the apostle Paul, who lived only for Christ, and under
   all circumstances and amid all trials by sea and land, among Jews and
   heathen, in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, in freedom and
   bonds, attested the divine power of the gospel for the salvation of the
   world. This ideal, however, Gregory found but seldom realized. He gives
   on the whole a very unfavorable account of the bishops, and even of the
   most celebrated councils of his day, charging them with ignorance
   unworthy means of promotion, ambition, flattery, pride, luxury, and
   worldly mindedness. He says even: "Our danger now is, that the holiest
   of all offices will become the most ridiculous; for the highest
   clerical places are gained not so much by virtue, as by iniquity; no
   longer the most worthy, but the most powerful, take the episcopal
   chair." [447] Though his descriptions, especially in the satirical poem
   "to himself and on the bishops," composed probably after his
   resignation in Constantinople (a.d. 381), may be in many points
   exaggerated, yet they were in general drawn from life and from
   experience. [448]

   Jerome also, in his epistles, unsparingly attacks the clergy of his
   time, especially the Roman, accusing them of avarice and legacy
   hunting, and drawing a sarcastic picture of a clerical fop, who, with
   his fine scented clothes, was more like a bridegroom than a clergyman.
   [449] Of the rural clergy', however, the heathen Ammianus Marcellinus
   bears a testimony, which is certainly reliable, to their simplicity,
   contentment, and virtue. [450]

   Chrysostom, in his celebrated treatise on the priesthood, [451] written
   probably, before his ordination (somewhere between the years 375 and
   381), or while he was deacon (between 381 and 386), portrayed the
   theoretical and practical qualifications, the exalted duties,
   responsibilities, and honors of this office, with youthful enthusiasm,
   in the best spirit of his age. He requires of the priest, that he be in
   every respect better than the monk, though, standing in the world, he
   have greater dangers and difficulties to contend with. [452] He sets up
   as the highest object of the preacher, the great principle stated by,
   Paul, that in all his discourses he should seek to please God alone,
   not men. "He must not indeed despise the approving demonstrations of
   men; but as little must he court them, nor trouble himself when his
   hearers withhold them. True and imperturbable comfort in his labors he
   finds only in the consciousness of having his discourse framed and
   wrought out to the approval of God." [453] Nevertheless the book as a
   whole is unsatisfactory. A comparison of it with the "Reformed Pastor"
   of Baxter, which is far deeper and richer in all that pertains to
   subjective experimental Christianity and the proper care of souls,
   would result emphatically in favor of the English Protestant church of
   the seventeenth century. [454]

   We must here particularly notice a point which reflects great discredit
   on the moral sense of many of the fathers, and shows that they had not
   wholly freed themselves from the chains of heathen ethics. The occasion
   of this work of Chrysostom was a ruse, by which he had evaded election
   to the bishopric, and thrust it upon his friend Basil. [455] To justify
   this conduct, he endeavors at large, in the fifth chapter of the first
   book, to prove that artifice might be lawful and useful; that is, when
   used as a means to a good end. "Manifold is the potency of deception,
   only it must not be employed with knavish intent. And this should be
   hardly called deception, but rather a sort of accommodation
   (oikonomia), wisdom, art, or sagacity, by which one can find many ways
   of escape in an exigency, and amend the errors of the soul." He appeals
   to biblical examples, like Jonathan and the daughter of Saul, who by
   deceiving their father rescued their friend and husband; and,
   unwarrantably, even to Paul, who became to the Jews a Jew, to the
   Gentiles a Gentile, and circumcised Timothy, though in the Epistle to
   the Galatians he pronounced circumcision useless. Chrysostom, however,
   had evidently learned this, loose and pernicious principle respecting
   the obligation of truthfulness, not from the Holy Scriptures, but from
   the Grecian sophists. [456] Besides, he by no means stood alone in the
   church in this matter, but had his predecessors in the Alexandrian
   fathers, [457] and his followers in Cassian, Jerome, and other eminent
   Catholic divines.

   Jerome made a doubtful distinction between gumnastikos scribere and
   dogmatikos scribere, and, with Origen, explained the severe censure of
   Paul on Peter in Antioch, for example, as a mere stroke of pastoral
   policy, or an accommodation to the weakness of the Jewish Christians at
   the expense of truth. [458] But Augustine's delicate Christian sense of
   truth revolted at this construction, and replied that such an
   interpretation undermined the whole authority of Holy Scripture; that
   an apostle could never lie, even for a good object; that, in extremity,
   one should rather suppose a false reading, or wrong translation, or
   suspect his own apprehension; but that in Antioch Paul spoke the truth
   and justly censured Peter openly for his inconsistency, or for a
   practical (not a theoretical) error, and thus deserves the praise of
   righteous boldness, as Peter on the other hand, by his meek submission
   to the censure, merits the praise of holy humility. [459]

   Thus in Jerome and Augustine we have the representatives of two
   opposite ethical views: one, unduly subjective, judging all moral acts
   merely by their motive and object, and sanctioning, for example,
   tyrannicide, or suicide to escape disgrace, or breach of faith with
   heretics (as the later Jesuitical casuistry does with the utmost
   profusion of sophistical subtlety); the other, objective, proceeding on
   eternal, immutable principles and the irreconcilable opposition of good
   and evil, and freely enough making prudence subservient to truth, but
   never truth subservient to prudence.

   Meantime, in the Greek church also, as early as the fourth century, the
   Augustinian view here and there made its way; and Basil the Great, in
   his shorter monastic Rule, [460] rejected even accommodation
   (oikonomia) for a good end, because Christ ascribes the lie, without
   distinction of kinds, exclusively to Satan. [461] In this respect,
   therefore, Chrysostom did not stand at the head of his age, but
   represented without doubt the prevailing view of the Eastern church.

   The legislation of the councils with reference to the clergy, shows in
   general the earnestness and rigor with which the church guarded the
   moral purity and dignity of her servants. The canonical age was, on the
   average, after the analogy of the Old Testament, the five-and-twentieth
   year for the diaconate, the thirtieth for the priesthood and
   episcopate. Catechumens, neophytes, persons baptized at the point of
   death, penitents, energumens (such as were possessed of a devil),
   actors, dancers, soldiers, curials (court, state, and municipal
   officials), [462] slaves, eunuchs, bigamists, and all who led a
   scandalous life after baptism, were debarred from ordination. The
   frequenting of taverns and theatres, dancing and gambling, usury and
   the pursuit of secular business were forbidden to clergymen. But on the
   other hand, the frequent repetition of warnings against even the lowest
   and most common sins, such as licentiousness, drunkenness, fighting,
   and buffoonery, and the threatening of corporal punishment for certain
   misdemeanors, yield an unfavorable conclusion in regard to the moral
   standing of the sacred order. [463] Even at the councils the clerical
   dignity was not seldom desecrated by outbreaks of coarse passion;
   insomuch that the council of Ephesus, in 449, is notorious as the
   "council of robbers."

   In looking at this picture, however, we must not forget that in this,
   period of the sinking empire of Rome the task of the clergy was
   exceedingly difficult, and amidst the nominal conversion of the whole
   population of the empire, their number and education could not keep
   pace with the sudden and extraordinary expansion of their field of
   labor. After all, the clerical office was the great repository of
   intellectual and moral force for the world. It stayed the flood of
   corruption; rebuked the vices of the times; fearlessly opposed
   tyrannical cruelty; founded institutions of charity and public benefit;
   prolonged the existence of the Roman empire; rescued the literary
   treasures of antiquity; carried the gospel to the barbarians, and
   undertook to educate and civilize their rude and vigorous hordes. Out
   of the mass of mediocrities tower the great church teachers of the
   fourth and fifth centuries, combining all the learning, the talent, and
   the piety of the time, and through their immortal writings mightily
   moulding the succeeding ages of the world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [446] Epist. 21 ad Valerium Nihil esse in hac vita et maxime hoc
   tempore facilius et laetitius et hominibus acceptabilius episcopi aut
   presbyteri aut diaconi officio, si perfunctorie atque adulatorie res
   agatur: sed nihil apud Deum miserius et tristius et damnabilius. Item
   nihil esse in hac vita et maxime hoc tempore difficilius, laboriosius,
   periculosius episcopi aut presbyteri aut diaconi officio, sed apud Deum
   nihil beatius, si eo modo militetur, quo noster imperator jubet." This
   epistle was written soon after his ordination to the priesthood,
   a.d.391. See Opera, ed. Bened. tom. ii p. 25.

   [447] Orat. xliii. c. 46 (Opera, ed. Bened. tom. i. p. 791), in the
   Latin translation: "Nunc autem periculum est, ne ordo omnium
   sanctissimus, sit quoque omnium maxime ridiculus. Non enim virtute
   magis, quam maleficio et scelere, sacerdotium paratur; nec digniorum,
   sed potentiorum, throni sunt." In the following chapter, however, he
   represents his friend Basil as a model of all virtues.

   [448] Comp. Ullmann: Gregor von Nazianz, Erste Beilage, p. 509-521,
   where the views of this church father on the clerical office and the
   clergy of his time are presented at large in his own words. Also
   Gieseler, i., ii. § 103, gives copious extracts from the writings of
   Gregory on the vices of the clergy.

   [449] Hieron. ad Eustochium, and especially ad Nepotianum, de vita
   clericorum et monachorum (Opera, ed. Vall. tom. i. p. 252 sqq.). Yet
   neither does he spare the monks, but says, ad Nepot.: "Nonnulli sunt
   ditiores monachi quam fuerant seculares et clerici qui possident opes
   sub Christo paupere, quas sub locuplete et fallaci Diabolo non
   habuerant."

   [450] Lib. xxvii. c. 3, sub ann. 367.

   [451] Peri hierosunes, or De Sacerdotio libri sex. The work has been
   often published separately, and several times translated into modern
   languages (into German, for example, by Hasselbach, 1820, and Ritter,
   1821; into English by Hollier, 1740, Bunce, 1759; Hohler, 1837; Marsh,
   1844; and best by B. Harris Cowper, London, 1866). Comp. the list of
   twenty-three different separate editions and translations in Lomler:
   Joh. Chrysost. Opera praestantissima Gr. et Lat. Rudolph. 1840, p.
   viii, ix.

   [452] De Sacerdotio, lib. vi. cap. 2-8.

   [453] Pros areskeian tou Theou, lib. v. c. 7.

   [454] Comp. also the remarks of B. H. Cowper in the introduction to his
   English translation, Lond. 1866, p. xiii.

   [455] Not Basil the Great (as Socrates supposes), for he was much
   older, and died in 379; but probably (as Montfaucon conjectures) the
   bishop of Raphanea in Syria, near Antioch, whose name appears among the
   bishops of the council of Constantinople, in 381.

   [456] Even the purest moral philosopher of antiquity, Plato, vindicates
   falsehood, and recommends it to physicians and rulers as a means to a
   good end, a help to the healing of the sick or to the advantage of the
   people. Comp. De republ. iii. p. 266, ed. Bipont.: Ei gar orthos
   elechgomen arti, kai to onti theois men achreston pseudos anthropois de
   chresimon, hos en pharmakou eidei, delon hoti to ge toiouton hiatrois
   doteon, idiotais de ouch hapteon. Delon, ephe. Tois archousi de tes
   poleos , eiper tisin allois, prosekei pseudesthai e polemion e politon
   heneka, ep opheleiates poleos; tois de allois pasin ouch hapteon tou
   toioutou. . The Jewish philosophizing theologian, Philo, had a similar
   view, in his work: Quod Deus sit immutabilis, p. 302.

   [457] Clemens Alex., Strom. vi. p. 802, and Origen, Strom. vi. (in
   Hieron. Apol. i. Adv. Ruf. c. 18), where he adduces the just cited
   passage of Plato in defence of a doubtful accommodation at the expense
   of truth. See the relevant passages in Gieseler, i. § 63, note 7.

   [458] Epist. 48 (ed. Vall., or Ep. 30 ed. Bened., Ep. 50 in older
   editions), ad Pammachium, pro libris contra Jovinianum, and Comm. ad
   Gal. ii. 11 sqq. Also Johannes Cassianus, a pupil of Chrysostom,
   defends the lawfulness of falsehood and deception in certain cases,
   Coll. xvii. 8 and 17.

   [459] Comp. the somewhat sharp correspondence of the two fathers in
   Hieron. Epist. 101-105, 110, 112, 115, 134, 141, in Vallarsi's ed.
   (tom. i. 625 sqq.), or in August. Epist 67, 68, 72-75, 81, 82 (in the
   Bened. ed. of Aug. tom. ii. 161 sqq.); August.: De mendacio, and Contra
   mendacium; also the treatise of Möhler mentioned above, 41, on this
   controversy, so instructive in regard to the patristic ethics and
   exegesis.

   [460] Regul. brev. interrogate 76, cited by Neander in his monograph on
   Chrysostom(3d ed.) i. p. 97. Neander there adduces still another
   similar testimony against the lawfulness of the lie, by the
   contemporaneous Egyptian monk, John of Lycopolis, from Pallad. Hist.
   Lausiaca.

   [461] John, viii. 44.

   [462] The ground on which even civil officers were excluded, is stated
   by the Roman council of 402, which ordained in the tenth canon: "One
   who is clothed with a civil office cannot, on account of the sins
   almost necessarily connected with it, become a clergyman without
   previous penance." Comp. Mansi, iii. 1133, and Hefele; ii. 75.

   [463] Comp. the decrees of councils in Hefele, ii. 574, 638, 686, 687,
   753, 760, &c. Even the Can. Apost. 27, 65, and 72, are directed against
   common crimes in the clergy, such as battery, murder, and theft, which
   therefore must have already appeared, for legislation always has regard
   to the actual state of things. The Pastoral Epistles of Paul contain no
   exhortations or prohibitions of this kind.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 52. The Lower Clergy.

   As the authority and influence of the bishops, after the accession of
   Constantine, increased, the lower clergy became more and more dependent
   upon them. The episcopate and the presbyterate were now rigidly
   distinguished. And yet the memory of their primitive identity lingered.
   Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, reminds the bishops that they
   owe their elevation above the presbyters, not so much to Divine
   institution as to ecclesiastical usage; for before the outbreak of
   controversies in the church there was no distinction between the two,
   except that presbyter is a term of age, and bishop a term of official
   dignity; but when men, at the instigation of Satan, erected parties and
   sects, and, instead of simply following Christ, named themselves of
   Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, all agreed to put one of the presbyters at
   the head of the rest, that by his universal supervision of the
   churches, he might kill the seeds of division. [464] The great
   commentators of the Greek church agree with Jerome in maintaining the
   original identity of bishops and presbyters in the New Testament. [465]

   In the episcopal or cathedral churches the Presbyters still formed the
   council of the bishop. In town and country congregations, where no
   bishop officiated, they were more independent. Preaching,
   administration of the sacraments, and care of souls were their
   functions. In. North Africa they were for a long time not allowed to
   preach in the presence of the bishop; until Augustine was relieved by
   his bishop of this restriction. The seniores plebis in the African
   church of the fourth and fifth centuries were not clergymen, but civil
   personages and other prominent members of the congregation. [466]

   In the fourth century arose the office of archpresbyter, whose duty it
   was to preside over the worship, and sometimes to take the place of the
   bishop in his absence or incapacity.

   The Deacons, also called Levites, retained the same functions which
   they had held in the preceding period. In the West, they alone, not the
   lectors, were allowed to read in public worship the lessons from the
   Gospels; which, containing the words of the Lord, were placed above the
   Epistles, or the words of the apostles. They were also permitted to
   baptize and to preach. After the pattern of the church in Jerusalem,
   the number of deacons, even in large congregations, was limited to
   seven; though not rigidly, for the cathedral of Constantinople had,
   under Justinian I., besides sixty presbyters, a hundred deacons, forty
   deaconesses, ninety subdeacons, a hundred and ten lectors, twenty-five
   precentors, and a hundred janitors--a total of five hundred and
   twenty-five officers. Though subordinate to the presbyters, the deacons
   frequently stood in close relations with the bishop, and exerted a
   greater influence. Hence they not rarely looked upon ordination to the
   presbyterate as a degradation. After the beginning of the fourth
   century an archdeacon stood at the head of the college, the most
   confidential adviser of the bishop, his representative and legate, and
   not seldom his successor in office. Thus Athanasius first appears as
   archdeacon of Alexandria at the council of Nice, clothed with important
   influence; and upon the death of the latter he succeeds to the
   patriarchal chair of Alexandria.

   The office of Deaconess, which, under the strict separation of the
   sexes in ancient times, and especially in Greece, was necessary to the
   completion of the diaconate, and which originated in the apostolic age,
   [467] continued in the Eastern church down to the twelfth century. It
   was frequently occupied by the widows of clergymen or the wives of
   bishops, who were obliged to demit the married state before entering
   upon their sacred office. Its functions were the care of the female
   poor, sick, and imprisoned, assisting in the baptism of adult women,
   and, in the country churches of the East, perhaps also of the West, the
   preparation of women for baptism by private instruction. [468]
   Formerly, from regard to the apostolic precept in 1 Tim. v. 9, the
   deaconesses were required to be sixty years of age. [469] The general
   council of Chalcedon, however, in 451, reduced the canonical age to
   forty years, and in the fifteenth canon ordered: "No female shall be
   consecrated deaconess before she is forty years old, and not then
   without careful probation. If, however, after having received
   consecration, and having been some time in the service, she marry,
   despising the grace of God, she with her husband shall be
   anathematized." The usual ordination prayer in the consecration of
   deaconesses, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, runs thus:
   "Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of man and
   woman, who didst fill Miriam and Deborah and Hannah and Huldah with the
   Spirit, and didst not disdain to suffer thine only-begotten Son to be
   born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle and the temple didst
   appoint women keepers of thine holy gates: look down now upon this
   thine handmaid, who is designated to the office of deacon, and grant
   her the Holy Ghost, and cleanse her from all filthiness of the flesh
   and of the spirit, that she may worthily execute the work intrusted to
   her, to thine honor and to the praise of thine Anointed; to whom with
   thee and the Holy Ghost be honor and adoration forever. Amen." [470]

   The noblest type of an apostolic deaconess, which has come down to us
   from this period, is Olympias, the friend of Chrysostom, and the
   recipient of seventeen beautiful epistles from him. [471] She sprang
   from a respectable heathen family, but received a Christian education;
   was beautiful and wealthy; married in her seventeenth year (a.d. 384)
   the prefect of Constantinople, Nebridius; but in twenty months after
   was left a widow, and remained so in spite of the efforts of the
   emperor Theodosius to unite her with one of his own kindred. She became
   a deaconess; lived in rigid asceticism; devoted her goods to the poor;
   and found her greatest pleasure in doing good. When Chrysostom came to
   Constantinople, he became her pastor, and guided her lavish benefaction
   by wise counsel. She continued faithful to him in his misfortune;
   survived him by several years, and died in 420, lamented by all the
   poor and needy in the city and in the country around.

   In the West, on the contrary, the office of deaconess was first shorn
   of its clerical character by a prohibition of ordination passed by the
   Gallic councils in the fifth and sixth centuries; [472] and at last it
   was wholly abolished. The second synod of Orleans, in 533, ordained in
   its eighteenth canon: "No woman shall henceforth receive the benedictio
   diaconalis [which had been substituted for ordinatio], on account of
   the weakness of this sex." The reason betrays the want of good
   deaconesses, and suggests the connection of this abolition of an
   apostolic institution with the introduction of the celibacy of the
   priesthood, which seemed to be endangered by every sort of female
   society. The adoption of the care of the poor and sick by the state,
   and the cessation of adult baptisms and of the custom of immersion,
   also made female assistance less needful. In modern times, the Catholic
   church, it is true, has special societies or orders of women, like the
   Sisters of Mercy, for the care of the sick and poor, the training of
   children, and other objects of practical charity; and in the bosom of
   Protestantism also similar benevolent associations have arisen, under
   the name of Deaconess Institutes, or Sisters' Houses, though in the
   more free evangelical spirit, and without the bond of a vow. [473] But,
   though quite kindred in their object, these associations are not to be
   identified with the office of deaconess in the apostolic age and in the
   ancient church. That was a regular, standing office in every Christian
   congregation, corresponding to the office of deacon; and has never
   since the twelfth century been revived, though the local work of
   charity has never ceased.

   To the ordinary clergy there were added in this period sundry
   extraordinary church offices, rendered necessary by the multiplication
   of religious functions in large cities and dioceses:

   1. Stewards. [474] These officers administered the church property
   under the supervision of the bishop, and were chosen in part from the
   clergy, in part from such of the laity as were versed in law. In
   Constantinople the "great steward" was a person of considerable rank,
   though not a clergyman. The council of Chalcedon enjoined upon every
   episcopal diocese the appointment of such officers, and the selection
   of them from the clergy, "that the economy of the church might not be
   irresponsible, and thereby the church property be exposed to waste and
   the clerical dignity be brought into ill repute." [475] For conducting
   the litigation of the church, sometimes a special advocate, called the
   e[kdiko", or defensor, was appointed.

   2. Secretaries, [476] for drawing the protocols in public
   ecclesiastical transactions (gesta ecclesiastica). They were usually
   clergymen, or such as had prepared themselves for the service of the
   church.

   3. Nurses or Parabolani, [477] especially in connection with the larger
   church hospitals. Their office was akin to that of the deacons, but had
   more reference to the bodily assistance than to the spiritual care of
   the sick. In Alexandria, by the fifth century, these officers formed a
   great guild of six hundred members, and were not rarely misemployed as
   a standing army of episcopal domination. [478] Hence, upon a complaint
   of the citizens of Alexandria against them, to the emperor Theodosius
   II., their number were reduced to five hundred. In the West they were
   never introduced.

   4. Buriers of the Dead [479] likewise belonged among these ordines
   minores of the church. Under Theodosius II. there were more than a
   thousand of them in Constantinople.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [464] Hieron. Comm. ad Tit. i. 7: "Idem est ergo presbyter qui
   episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent
   ... communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur," etc. Comp.
   Epist. ad Evangelum presbyterum Ep. 146, ed. Vall. Opera, i. 1074 sqq.;
   Ep. 101, ed. Bened.), and Epist. ad Oceanum (Ep. 69, ed. Vall., Ep. 82,
   ed. Bened.). In the latter epistle he remarks: "Apud veteres iidem
   episcopi et presbyteri fuerunt, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc
   aetatis."

   [465] Chrysostom, Hom. i. in Ep. ad Philipp. (Phil. i. 1, on the words
   sun episkopois, which imply a number of bishops, i.e. presbyters in one
   and the same congregation), observes: tous presbuterou; houtos ekalese;
   tote gar teos ekoinonoun tois onomasi.. Of the same opinion are
   Theodoret, ad Phil. i. 1, and ad Tim. iii. 1; Ambrosiaster, ad Eph. iv.
   11; and the author of the pseudo-Augustinian Questiones V. et N.T., qu.
   101. Comp. on this whole subject of the original identity of
   episkoposand presbuteros, my History of the Apostolic Church, § 132
   (Engl. translation, p. 522-531), and Rich. Rothe: Anfänge der
   christlichen Kirche, i. p. 207-217.

   [466] Optatus of Mileve calls them, indeed, ecclesiasticos viros; not,
   however, in the sense of clerici, from whom, on the contrary, he
   distinguishes them, but in the broad sense of catholic Christians as
   distinguished from heathens and heretics. Comp. on these seniores
   plebis, orlay elders, as they are called, the discussion of Dr. Rothe:
   Die Anfänge der christl. Kirche u. ihrer Verfassung, vol. i. p. 227
   sqq.

   [467] Comp. Rom. xii. 1, 12, and my Hist. of the Apost. Church, § 135,
   p. 535 sqq.

   [468] Comp. Pelagius ad Rom. xvi. 1. Neander (iii. p. 314, note;
   Torrey's transl. ii. p. 158) infers from a canon of the fourth council
   of Carthage, that the latter custom prevailed also in the West, since
   it is there required of "viduae quae ad ministerium baptizandarum
   mulierum eliguntur," "ut possint apto et sano sermone docere imperitas
   et rusticas mulieres."

   [469] Comp. Codex Theodos. 1. xvi., Tit. ii. lex 27: "Nulla nisi
   emensis 60 annis secundum praeceptum apostoli ad diaconissarum
   consortium transferatur."

   [470] Const. Apost. lib. viii. cap. 20. We have given the prayer in
   full. Neander (iii. p. 322, note) omits some passages. The custom of
   ordaining deaconesses is placed by this prayer and by the canon quoted
   from the council of Chalcedon beyond dispute. The 19th canon of the
   council of Nice, however, appears to conflict with this, in reckoning
   deaconesses among the laity, who have no consecration (cheirothesia).
   Some therefore suppose that the ordination of deaconesses did not arise
   till after the Nicaenum (325), though the Apostolic Constitutions
   contradict this; while others (as Baronius, and recently Hefele,
   Concilien-Gesch. 1855, vol. i. p. 414) would resolve the contradiction
   by distinguishing between the propercheirothesia and the simple
   benediction. But the consecration of the deaconesses was certainly
   accompanied with imposition of hands in presence of the whole clergy;
   since the Apost. Const., 1. viii. c. 19, expressly say to the bishop:
   Epitheseis aute tas cheiras, parestotos tou presbuteriou kai ton
   diakonon kai ton diakonisson. The contradiction lies, however, in that
   Nicene canon itself; for (according to the Greek Codices) the
   deaconesses are immediately before counted among the clergy, if we do
   not, with the Latin translation, read deacons instead. Neander helps
   himself by a distinction between proper deaconesses and widows abusivè
   so called.

   [471] They are found in Montfaucon's Bened. edition of Chrysostom, tom.
   iii. p. 524-604, and in Lomler's edition of Joann. Chrysost. Opera
   praestantissima, 1840, p. 168-252. These seventeen epistles to Olympias
   are, in the judgment of Photius as quoted by Montfaucon (Op. iii. 524),
   of the epistles of Chrysostom, "longissimae, elegantissimae, omniumque
   utilissimae." Compare also Montfaucon's prefatory remarks on Olympias.

   [472] A mere benediction was appointed in place of ordination. The
   first synod of Orange (Arausicana i.), in 441, directed in the 26th
   canon: "Diaconae omnimodis non ordinandae [thus they had previously
   been ordained in Gaul also, and reckoned with the clergy]; si quae jam
   sunt, benedictioni, quae populo impenditur, capita submittant."
   Likewise was the ordination of deaconesses forbidden by the council of
   Epaon in Burgundy, in 517, can. 21, and by the second council at
   Orleans, in 533, can. 17 and 18.

   [473] The Deaconess House (Hutterhaus) at Kaiserswerth on the Rhine,
   founded in 1836; Bethany in Berlin, 1847; and similar evangelical
   hospitals in Dresden, 1842, Strasburg, 1842, Paris (institution des
   deaconess des églises evangéliques de France), 1841, London
   (institution of Nursing Sisters), 1840, New York (St. Luke's Hopital),
   Pittsburg, 1849, Smyrna, Jerusalem, etc.

   [474] Oikonomoi. Besides these there were also keimeliarchai,
   sacellarii, thesaurarii.

   [475] Conc. Chalced. can. 26. This canon also occurs twice in the Corp.
   jur. can. c. 21, C. xvi. q. 7, and c. 4, Dist. lxxix.

   [476] ·Tachugraphoi, notarii, excerptores.

   [477] Parabolani, probably from paraballein ten zoen, to risk life;
   because in contagious diseases they often exposed themselves to the
   danger of death.

   [478] A perversion of a benevolent association to turbulent purposes
   similar to that of the firemen's companies in the large cities of the
   United States.

   [479] 78 Kopiatai, copiattae, fossores, fossarii.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 53. The Bishops.

   The bishops now stood with sovereign power at the head of the clergy
   and of their dioceses. They had come to be universally regarded as the
   vehicles and propagators of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the
   teachers and lawgivers of the church in all matters of faith and
   discipline. The specific distinction between them and the presbyters
   was carried into everything; while yet it is worthy of remark, that
   Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, just the most eminent exegetes of
   the ancient church, expressly acknowledged the original identity of the
   two offices in the New Testament, and consequently derive the proper
   episcopate, not from divine institution, but only from church usage.
   [480]

   The traditional participation of the people in the election, which
   attested the popular origin of the episcopal office, still continued,
   but gradually sank to a mere formality, and at last became entirely
   extinct. The bishops filled their own vacancies, and elected and
   ordained the clergy. Besides ordination, as the medium for
   communicating the official gifts, they also claimed from the presbyters
   in the West, after the fifth century, the exclusive prerogatives of
   confirming the baptized and consecrating the chrism or holy ointment
   used in baptism. [481] In the East, on the contrary, confirmation (the
   chrism) is performed also by the presbyters, and, according to the
   ancient custom, immediately follows baptism.

   To this spiritual preëminence of the bishops was now added, from the
   time of Constantine, a civil importance. Through the union of the
   church with the state, the bishops became at the same time state
   officials of weight, and enjoyed the various privileges which accrued
   to the church from this connection. [482] They had thenceforth an
   independent and legally valid jurisdiction; they held supervision of
   the church estates, which were sometimes very considerable, and they
   had partial charge even of the city, property; they superintended the
   morals of the people, and even of the emperor; and they exerted
   influence upon the public legislation. They were exempt from civil
   jurisdiction, and could neither be brought as witnesses before a court
   nor be compelled to take an oath. Their dioceses grew larger, and their
   power and revenues increased. Dominus beatissimus(makariotatos),
   sanctissimus(hagiotatos), or reverendissimus, Beatitudo or Sanctitas
   tua, and similar high-sounding titles, passed into universal use.
   Kneeling, kissing of the hand, and like tokens of reverence, came to be
   shown them by all classes, up to the emperor himself. Chrysostom, at
   the end of the fourth century, says: "The heads of the empire
   (hyparchs) and the governors of provinces (toparchs) enjoy no such
   honor as the rulers of the church. They are first at court, in the
   society of ladies, in the houses of the great. No one has precedence of
   them."

   To this position corresponded the episcopal insignia, which from the
   fourth century became common: the ring, as the symbol of the espousal
   of the bishop to the church; the crosier or shepherd's staff (also
   called crook, because it was generally curved at the top); and the
   pallium, [483] , a shoulder cloth, after the example of the ephod of
   the Jewish high-priest, and perhaps of the sacerdotal mantle worn by
   the Roman emperors as pontifices maximi. The pallium is a seamless
   cloth hanging over the shoulders, formerly of white linen, in the West
   subsequently of white lamb's wool, with four red or black crosses
   wrought in it with silk. According to the present usage of the Roman
   church the wool is taken from the lambs of St. Agnes, which are every
   year solemnly blessed and sacrificed by the pope in memory of this pure
   virgin. Hence the later symbolical meaning of the pallium, as denoting
   the bishop's following of Christ, the good Shepherd, with the lost and
   reclaimed sheep upon his shoulders. Alexandrian tradition traced this
   vestment to the evangelist Mark; but Gregory Nazianzen expressly says
   that it was first given by Constantine the Great to the bishop Macarius
   of Jerusalem. [484] In the East it was worn by all bishops, in the West
   by archbishops only, on whom, from the time of Gregory I., it was
   conferred by the pope on their accession to office. At first the
   investiture was gratuitous, but afterward came to involve a
   considerable fee, according to the revenues of the archbishopric.

   As the bishop united in himself all the rights and privileges of the
   clerical office, so he was expected to show himself a model in the
   discharge of its duties and a follower of the great Archbishop and
   Archshepherd of the sheep. He was expected to exhibit in a high degree
   the ascetic virtues, especially that of virginity, which, according to
   Catholic ethics, belongs to the idea of moral perfection. Many a
   bishop, like Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Martin
   of Tours, lived in rigid abstinence and poverty, and devoted his income
   to religious and charitable objects.

   But this very power and this temporal advantage of the episcopate
   became also a lure for avarice and ambition, and a temptation to the
   lordly and secular spirit. For even under the episcopal mantle the
   human heart still beat, with all those weaknesses and passions, which
   can only be overcome by the continual influence of Divine grace. There
   were metropolitans and patriarchs, especially in Alexandria,
   Constantinople, and Rome, who, while yet hardly past the age of
   persecution, forgot the servant form of the Son of God and the poverty
   of his apostles and martyrs, and rivalled the most exalted civil
   officials, nay, the emperor himself, in worldly pomp and luxury. Not
   seldom were the most disgraceful intrigues employed to gain the holy
   office. No wonder, says Ammianus, that for so splendid a prize as the
   bishopric of Rome, men strive with the utmost passion and persistence,
   when rich presents from ladies and a more than imperial sumptuousness
   invite them. [485] The Roman prefect, Praetextatus, declared jestingly
   to the bishop Damasus, who had obtained the office through a bloody
   battle of parties, that for such a price he would at once turn
   Christian himself. [486] Such an example could not but shed its evil
   influence on the lower clergy of the great cities. Jerome sketches a
   sarcastic description of the Roman priests, who squandered all their
   care on dress and perfumery, curled their hair with crisping pins, wore
   sparkling rings, paid far too great attention to women, and looked more
   like bridegrooms than like clergymen. [487] And in the Greek church it
   was little better. Gregory Nazianzen, himself a bishop, and for a long
   time patriarch of Constantinople, frequently mourns the ambition, the
   official jealousies, and the luxury of the hierarchy, and utters the
   wish that the bishops might be distinguished only by a higher grade of
   virtue.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [480] See the passages quoted in § 52, and the works there referred to.
   The modern Romish divine, Perrone, in his Praelectiones Theologicae, t.
   ix. § 93, denies that the doctrine of the superiority of bishops over
   presbyters by divine right, is an article of the Catholic faith. But
   the council of Trent, sess. xxiii. can. 6, condemns all who deny the
   divine institution of the three orders.

   [481] Innocent I., Ep. ad Decent.: "Ut sine chrismate et episcopi
   jussione neque presbyter neque diaconus jus habeant baptizandi."

   [482] Comp. above, ch. iii. § 14-16.

   [483] 2 Hiera stole, homophorion, superhumerale, pallium, also ephod
   (rvv', epomis). The ephod (Ex. xxviii. 6-11; and xxxix. 2-5), in
   connection with the square breastplate belonging to it (nshch, comp.
   Ex. xxviii. 15-30; xxxix. 8-21), was the principal official vestment of
   the Jewish high-priest, and no doubt served as the precedent for the
   archiepiscopal pallium, but exceeded the latter in costliness. It
   consisted of two shoulder pieces (like the pallium and the chasubles),
   which hung over the upper part of the body before and behind, and were
   skilfully wrought of fine linen in three colors, fastened by golden
   rings and chains, and richly ornamented with gold thread, and twelve
   precious stones, on which the names of the twelve tribes were graven.
   Whether the sacred oracle, Urim and Thummim (LXX.: delosis kai
   aletheia, Ex. xxviii. 30), was identical with the twelve precious
   stones in the breastplate, the learned are not agreed. Comp. Winer,
   Bibl. Reallex., and W. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, sub Urim and
   Thummim.

   [484] Orat. xlvii. So Theodoret, Hist. eccl. ii. 27, at the beginning.
   Macarius is said to have worn the gilded vestment in the administration
   of baptism.

   [485] Amm. Marcell. xxvii. c. 3, sub anno 367: "ut dotentur
   oblationibus matronarum procedantque vehiculis insidentes, circumspecte
   vestiti, epulas curantes profusas, adeo ut eorum convivia regales
   superent mensas." But then with this pomp of the Roman prelates he
   contrasts the poverty of the worthy country bishops.

   [486] Besides Ammianus, Jerome also states this, in his book against
   John of Jerusalem (Opera, tom. ii. p. 415, ed. Vallars.): "Miserabilis
   ille Praetextatus, qui designatus consul est mortuus, homo sacrilegus
   et idolorum cultor, solebat ludens beato papae Damaso dicere: 'Facite
   me Romanae urbis episcopum, et ero protinus Christianus.' "

   [487] Epist. ad Eustochium de virginitate servanda.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 54. Organization of the Hierarchy: Country Bishop, City Bishops, and
   Metropolitans.

   The episcopate, notwithstanding the unity of the office and its rights,
   admitted the different grades of country bishop, ordinary city bishop,
   metropolitan, and patriarch. Such a distinction had already established
   itself on the basis of free religious sentiment in the church; so that
   the incumbents of the apostolic sees, like Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus,
   Corinth, and Rome, stood at the head of the hierarchy. But this
   gradation now assumed a political character, and became both modified
   and confirmed by attachment to the municipal division of the Roman
   empire.

   Constantine the Great divided the whole empire into four praefectures
   (the Oriental, the Illyrian, the Italian, and the Gallic); the
   praefectures into vicariates, dioceses, or proconsulates, fourteen or
   fifteen in all; [488] and each diocese again into several provinces.
   [489] The praefectures were governed by Praefecti Praetorio, the
   dioceses by Vicarii, the provinces by Rectores, with various
   titles--commonly Praesides.

   It was natural, that after the union of church and state the
   ecclesiastical organization and the political should, so far as seemed
   proper, and hence of course with manifold exceptions, accommodate
   themselves to one another. In the East this principle of conformity was
   more palpably and rigidly carried out than in the West. The council of
   Nice in the fourth century proceeds upon it, and the second and fourth
   ecumenical councils confirm it. The political influence made itself
   most distinctly felt in the elevation of Constantinople to a
   patriarchal see. The Roman bishop Leo, however, protested against the
   reference of his own power to political considerations, and planted it
   exclusively upon the primacy of Peter; though evidently the Roman see
   owed its importance to the favorable cooperation of both these
   influences. The power of the patriarchs extended over one or more
   municipal dioceses; while the metropolitans presided over single
   provinces. The word diocese (dioikesis) passed from the political into
   the ecclesiastical terminology, and denoted at first a patriarchal
   district, comprising several provinces (thus the expression occurs
   continually in the Greek acts of councils), but afterward came to be
   applied in the West to each episcopal district. The circuit of a
   metropolitan was called in the East an eparchy (eparchia), in the West
   provincia. An ordinary bishopric was called in the East a parish
   (paroikia), while in the Latin church the term (parochia) was usually
   applied to a mere pastoral charge.

   The lowest rank in the episcopal hierarchy was occupied by the country
   bishops, [490] the presiding officers of those rural congregations,
   which were not supplied with presbyters from neighboring cities. In
   North Africa, with its multitude of small dioceses, these country
   bishops were very numerous, and stood on an equal footing with the
   others. But in the East they became more and more subordinate to the
   neighboring city bishops; until at last, partly on account of their own
   incompetence, chiefly for the sake of the rising hierarchy, they were
   wholly extinguished. Often they were utterly unfit for their office; at
   least Basil of Caesarea, who had fifty country bishops in his
   metropolitan district, reproached them with frequently receiving men
   totally unworthy into the clerical ranks. And moreover, they stood in
   the way of the aspirations of the city bishops; for the greater the
   number of bishops, the smaller the diocese and the power of each,
   though probably the better the collective influence of all upon the
   church. The council of Sardica, in 343, doubtless had both
   considerations in view, when, on motion of Hosius, the president, it
   decreed: "It is not permitted, that, in a village or small town, for
   which a single priest is sufficient, a bishop should be stationed, lest
   the episcopal dignity and authority suffer scandal; [491] but the
   bishops of the eparchy (province) shall appoint bishops only for those
   places where bishops have already been, or where the town is so
   populous that it is considered worthy to be a bishopric." The place of
   these chorepiscopi was thenceforth supplied either by visitators
   (periodeutai), who in the name of the bishop visited the country
   congregations from time to time, and performed the necessary functions,
   or by resident presbyters (parochi), under the immediate supervision of
   the city bishop.

   Among the city bishops towered the bishops of the capital cities of the
   various provinces. They were styled in the East metropolitans, in the
   West usually archbishops. [492] They had the oversight of the other
   bishops of the province; ordained them, in connection with two or three
   assistants; summoned provincial synods, which, according to the fifth
   canon of the council of Nice and the direction of other councils, were
   to be held twice a year; and presided in such synods. They promoted
   union among the different churches by the reciprocal communication of
   synodal acts, and confirmed the organism of the hierarchy.

   This metropolitan constitution, which had gradually arisen out of the
   necessities of the church, became legally established in the East in
   the fourth century, and passed thence to the Graeco-Russian church. The
   council of Nice, at that early day, ordered in the fourth canon, that
   every new bishop should be ordained by all, or at least by three, of
   the bishops of the eparchy (the municipal province), under the
   direction and with the sanction of the metropolitan. [493] Still
   clearer is the ninth canon of the council of Antioch, in 341: "The
   bishops of each eparchy (province) should know, that upon the bishop of
   the metropolis (the municipal capital) also devolves a care for the
   whole eparchy, because in the metropolis all, who have business, gather
   together from all quarters. Hence it has been found good, that he
   should also have a precedence in honor, [494] and that the other
   bishops should do nothing without him--according to the old and still
   binding canon of our fathers--except that which pertains to the
   supervision and jurisdiction of their parishes (i.e. dioceses in the
   modern terminology), and the provinces belonging to them; as in fact
   they ordain presbyters and deacons, and decide all judicial matters.
   Otherwise they ought to do nothing without the bishop of the
   metropolis, and he nothing without the consent of the other bishops."
   This council, in the nineteenth canon, forbade a bishop being ordained
   without the presence of the metropolitan and the presence or
   concurrence of the majority of the bishops of the province.

   In Africa a similar system had existed from the time of Cyprian, before
   the church and the state were united. Every province had a Primas; the
   oldest bishop being usually chosen to this office. The bishop of
   Carthage, however, was not only primate of Africa proconsularis, but at
   the same time, corresponding to the proconsul of Carthage, the
   ecclesiastical head of Numidia and Mauretania, and had power to summon
   a general council of Africa. [495]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [488] The dioceses or vicariates were as follows: I. The Praefectura
   Orientalisconsisted of the five dioceses of Oriens, with Antioch as its
   political and ecclesiastical capital; Aegyptus, with Alexandria; Asia
   proconsularis, with Ephesus; Pontus, with Caesarea in Cappadocia;
   Thracia, with Heraklea, afterward Constantinople. II. The Praefectura
   Illyrica, with Thessalonica as its capital, had only the two dioceses
   of Macedonia and Dacia. III. The Praefectura Italicaembraced Roma (i.e.
   South Italy and the islands of the Mediterranean, or the so-called
   Suburban provinces); Italia, or the Vicariate of Italy, with its centre
   at Mediolanum (Milan); Illyricum occidentale, with its capital at
   Sirmium; and Africa occidentalis, with Carthage. IV. The Praefectura
   Gallicaembraced the dioceses of Gallia, with Treveri (Trier) and
   Lugdunum (Lyons); Hispania, with Hispalis (Sevilla); and Britannnia,
   with Eboracum (York).

   [489] Thus the diocese of the Orient, for example, had five provinces,
   Egypt nine, Pontus thirteen, Gaul seventeen, Spain seven. Comp.
   Wiltsch, Kirchl. Geogr. u. Statistik, i. p. 67 sqq., where the
   provinces are all quoted, as is not necessary for our purpose here.

   [490] Chorepiskopoi. The principal statements respecting them are:
   Epist. Synodi Antioch., a.d.270, in Euseb. H. E. vii. 36 (where they
   are called episkopoi ton homoron agron); Concil. Ancyr., a.d.315, can.
   13 (where they are forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons); Concil.
   Antioch., a.d.341, can. 10 (same prohibition); Conc. Laodic., between
   320 and 372, can. 57 (where the erection of new country bishoprics is
   forbidden); and Conc. Sardic., a.d.343, can. 6 (where they are wholly
   abolished).

   [491] Can. 6: ... ina me kateutelixetai to tou episkopou onoma kai he
   authentia; or, in the Latin version: "Ne vilescat nomen episcopi et
   auctoritas." Comp. Hefele, i. p. 556. The differences between the Greek
   and Latin text in the first part of this canon have no influence on the
   prohibition of the appointment of country bishops.

   [492] Metropolites, metropolitanus, and the kindred title exarchos
   (applied to the most powerful metropolitans); archiepiskopos,
   archiepiscopus, and primas.

   [493] This canon has been recently discovered also in a Coptic
   translation, and published by Pitra, in the Spiclegium Solesmense, i.
   526 sq.

   [494] Kai te time proegeisthai auton.

   [495] Cyprian, Epist. 45, says of his province of Carthage: "Latius
   fusa est nostra provincia; habet enim Numidiam et Mauretaniam sibi
   cohaerentes."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 55. The Patriarchs.

   Mich. Le Quien (French Dominican, 1788): Oriens Christianus, in quatuor
   patriarchatus digestus, quo exhibentur ecclesiae, patriarchae
   caeterique preasules totius Orientis. Opus posthumum, Par. 1740, 3
   vols. fol. (a thorough description of the oriental dioceses from the
   beginning to 1732). P. Jos. Cautelius (Jesuit): Metropolitanarum urbium
   historia civilis et ecclesiastic in qua Romanae Sedis dignitas et
   imperatorum et regum in eam merits explicantur, Par. 1685 (important
   for ecclesiastical statistics of the West, and the extension of the
   Roman patriarchate). Bingham (Anglican): Antiquities, l. ii. c. 17.
   Joh. El. Theod. Wiltsch (Evangel.): Handbuch der Kirchl. Geographie u.
   Statistik, Berl. 1846, vol. i. p. 56 sqq. Friedr. Maassen (R.C.): Der
   Primat des Bischofs von Rom. u. die alten Patriarchalkirchen, Bonn,
   1853. Thomas Greenwood: Cathedra Petri, a Political History of the
   Latin Patriarchate, Lond. 1859 sqq. (vol. i. p. 158-489). Comp. my
   review of this work in the Am. Theol. Rev., New York, 1864, p. 9 sqq.

   Still above the metropolitans stood the five Patriarchs, [496] the
   oligarchical summit, so to speak, the five towers in the edifice of the
   Catholic hierarchy of the Graeco-Roman empire.

   These patriarchs, in the official sense of the word as already fixed at
   the time of the fourth ecumenical council, were the bishops of the four
   great capitals of the empire, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and
   Constantinople; to whom was added, by way of honorary distinction, the
   bishop of Jerusalem, as president of the oldest Christian congregation,
   though the proper continuity of that office had been broken by the
   destruction of the holy city. They had oversight of one or more
   dioceses; at least of two or more provinces or eparchies. [497] They
   ordained the metropolitans; rendered the final decision in church
   controversies; conducted the ecumenical councils; published the decrees
   of the councils and the church laws of the emperors; and united in
   themselves the supreme legislative and executive power of the
   hierarchy. They bore the same relation to the metropolitans of single
   provinces, as the ecumenical councils to the provincial. They did not,
   however, form a college; each acted for himself. Yet in important
   matters they consulted with one another, and had the right also to keep
   resident legates (apocrisiarii) at the imperial court at
   Constantinople.

   In prerogative they were equal, but in the extent of their dioceses and
   in influence they differed, and had a system of rank among themselves.
   Before the founding of Constantinople, and down to the Nicene council,
   Rome maintained the first rank, Alexandria the second, and Antioch the
   third, in both ecclesiastical and political importance. After the end
   of the fourth century this order was modified by the insertion of
   Constantinople as the second capital, between Rome and Alexandria, and
   the addition of Jerusalem as the fifth and smallest patriarchate.

   The patriarch of Jerusalem presided only over the three meagre
   provinces of Palestine; [498] the patriarch of Antioch, over the
   greater part of the political diocese of the Orient, which comprised
   fifteen provinces, Syria, Phenicia, Cilicia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, &c.;
   [499] the patriarch of Alexandria, over the whole diocese of Egypt with
   its nine rich provinces, Aegyptus prima and secunda, the lower and
   upper Thebaid, lower and upper Libya, &c.; [500] the patriarch of
   Constantinople, over three dioceses, Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace,
   with eight and twenty provinces, and at the same time over the
   bishoprics among the barbarians; [501] the patriarch of Rome gradually
   extended his influence over the entire West, two prefectures, the
   Italian and the Gallic, with all their dioceses and provinces. [502]

   The patriarchal system had reference primarily only to the imperial
   church, but indirectly affected also the barbarians, who received
   Christianity from the empire. Yet even within the empire, several
   metropolitans, especially the bishop of Cyprus in the Eastern church,
   and the bishops of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna in the Western, during
   this period maintained their autocracy with reference to the patriarchs
   to whose dioceses they geographically belonged. In the fifth century,
   the patriarchs of Antioch attempted to subject the island of Cyprus,
   where Paul first had preached the gospel, to their jurisdiction; but
   the ecumenical council of Ephesus, in 431, confirmed to the church of
   Cyprus its ancient right to ordain its own bishops. [503] The North
   African bishops also, with all respect for the Roman see, long
   maintained Cyprian's spirit of independence, and in a council at Hippo
   Regius, in 393, protested against such titles as princeps sacerdotum,
   summus sacerdos, assumed by the patriarchs, and were willing only to
   allow the title of primae sedis episcopus. [504]

   When, in consequence of the Christological controversies, the
   Nestorians and Monophysites split off from the orthodox church, they
   established independent schismatic patriarchates, which continue to
   this day, showing that the patriarchal constitution answers most nearly
   to the oriental type of Christianity. The orthodox Greek church, as
   well as the schismatic sects of the East, has substantially remained
   true to the patriarchal system down to the present time; while the
   Latin church endeavored to establish the principle of monarchical
   centralization so early as Leo the Great, and in the course of the
   middle age produced the absolute papacy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [496] Patriarches; patriarcha; sometimes also, after the political
   terminology, exarchos. The name patriarch, originally applied to the
   progenitors of Israel (Heb. vii. 4, to Abraham; Acts vii. 8 sq., to the
   twelve sons of Jacob; ii. 29, to David, as founder of the Davidic
   Messianic house), was at first in the Eastern church an honorary title
   for bishops in general (so in Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa),
   but after the council of Constantinople (381), and still more after
   that of Chalcedon (451), it came to be used in an official sense and
   restricted to the five most eminent metropolitans. In the West, several
   metropolitans, especially the bishop of Aquileia, bore this title
   honoris causa. The bishop of Rome declined that particular term, as
   placing him on a level with other patriarchs, and preferred the name
   papa. "Patriarch" bespeaks an oligarchical church government; "pope," a
   monarchical.

   [497] According to the political division of the empire after
   Constantine. Comp. § 54

   [498] Comp. Wiltsch, i. p. 206 sqq. The statement of Ziegler, which
   Wiltsch quotes and seems to approve, that the fifth ecumenical council,
   of 553, added to the patriarchal circuit of Jerusalem the metropolitans
   of Berytus in Phenicia, and Ruba in Syria, appears to be an error. Ruba
   nowhere appears in the acts of the council, and Berytus belonged to
   Phoenicia prima, consequently to the patriarchate of Antioch. Le Quien
   knows nothing of such an enlargement of the patriarchate of
   Hierosolyma.

   [499] Wiltsch, i. 189 sqq.

   [500] Ibid. i. 177 sqq.

   [501] Ibid. p. 143 sqq.

   [502] Comp. § 57, below.

   [503] Comp. Wiltsch, i. p. 232 sq., and ii. 469.

   [504] Cod. can. eccl. Afr. can. 39, cited by Neander, iii. p. 335
   (Germ. ed.).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 56. Synodical Legislation on the Patriarchal Power and Jurisdiction.

   To follow now the ecclesiastical legislation respecting this
   patriarchal oligarchy in chronological order:

   The germs of it already lay in the ante-Nicene period, when the bishops
   of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, partly in virtue of the age and
   apostolic origin of their churches, partly, on account of the political
   prominence of those three cities as the three capitals of the Roman
   empire, steadily asserted a position of preëminence. The apostolic
   origin of the churches of Rome and Antioch is evident from the New
   Testament: Alexandria traced its Christianity, at least indirectly
   through the evangelist Mark, to Peter, and was politically more
   important than Antioch; while Rome from the first had precedence of
   both in church and in state. This preëminence of the oldest and most
   powerful metropolitans acquired formal legislative validity and firm
   establishment through the ecumenical councils of the fourth and fifth
   centuries.

   The first ecumenical council of Nice, in 325, as yet knew nothing of
   five patriarchs, but only the three metropolitans above named,
   confirming them in their traditional rights. [505] In the
   much-canvassed sixth canon, probably on occasion of the Meletian schism
   in Egypt, and the attacks connected with it on the rights of the bishop
   of Alexandria, that council declared as follows:

   "The ancient custom, which has obtained in Egypt, Libya, and the
   Pentapolis, shall continue in force, viz.: that the bishop of
   Alexandria have rule over all these [provinces], since this also is
   customary with the bishop of Rome [that is, not in Egypt, but with
   reference to his own diocese]. Likewise also at Antioch and in the
   other eparchies, the churches shall retain their prerogatives. Now, it
   is perfectly clear, that, if any one has been made bishop without the
   consent of the metropolitan, the great council does not allow him to be
   bishop." [506]

   The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new,
   but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church
   tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account
   of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration;
   and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their
   admitted rights. [507] The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch
   were placed substantially on equal footing, yet in such tone, that
   Antioch, as the third capital of the Roman empire, already stands as a
   stepping stone to the ordinary metropolitans. By the "other eparchies"
   of the canon are to be understood either all provinces, and therefore
   all metropolitan districts, or more probably, as in the second canon of
   the first council of Constantinople, only the three eparchates of
   Caesarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus, and Asia Minor, and Heraclea in
   Thrace, which, after Constantine's division of the East, possessed
   similar prerogatives, but were subsequently overshadowed and absorbed
   by Constantinople. In any case, however, this addition proves that at
   that time the rights and dignity of the patriarchs were not yet
   strictly distinguished from those of the other metropolitans. The
   bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch here appear in relation to the
   other bishops simply as primi inter pares, or as metropolitans of the
   first rank, in whom the highest political eminence was joined with the
   highest ecclesiastical. Next to them, in the second rank, come the
   bishops of Ephesus in the Asiatic diocese of the empire, of
   Neo-Caesarea in the Pontic, and of Heraclea in the Thracian; while
   Constantinople, which was not founded till five years later, is wholly
   unnoticed in the Nicene council, and Jerusalem is mentioned only under
   the name of Aelia.

   Between the first and second ecumenical councils arose the new
   patriarchate of Constantinople, or New Rome, built by Constantine in
   330, and elevated to the rank of the imperial residence. The bishop of
   this city was not only the successor of the bishop of the ancient
   Byzantium, hitherto under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of
   Heraclea, but, through the favor of the imperial court and the bishops
   who were always numerously assembled there, it placed itself in a few
   decennia among the first metropolitans of the East, and in the fifth
   century became the most powerful rival of the bishop of old Rome.

   This new patriarchate was first officially recognized at the first
   ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, and was conceded
   "the precedence in honor, next to the bishop of Rome," the second place
   among all bishops; and that, on the purely political consideration,
   that New Rome was the residence of the emperor. [508] At the same time
   the imperial city and the diocese of Thrace (whose ecclesiastical
   metropolis hitherto had been Heraclea) were assigned as its district.
   [509]

   Many Greeks took this as a formal assertion of the equality of the
   bishop of Constantinople with the bishop of Rome, understanding "next"
   or "after" (metav) as referring only to time, not to rank. But it is
   more natural to regard this as conceding a primacy of honor, which the
   Roman see could claim on different grounds. The popes, as the
   subsequent protest of Leo shows, were not satisfied with this, because
   they were unwilling to be placed in the same category with the
   Constantinopolitan fledgling, and at the same time assumed a supremacy
   of jurisdiction over the whole church. On the other hand, this decree
   was unwelcome also to the patriarch of Alexandria, because this see had
   hitherto held the second rank, and was now required to take the third.
   Hence the canon was not subscribed by Timotheus of Alexandria, and was
   regarded in Egypt as void. Afterward, however, the emperors prevailed
   with the Alexandrian patriarchs to yield this point.

   After the council of 381, the bishop of Constantinople indulged in
   manifold encroachments on the rights of the metropolitans of Ephesus
   and Caesarea in Cappadocia, and even on the rights of the other
   patriarchs. In this extension of his authority he was favored by the
   fact that, in spite of the prohibition of the council of Sardica, the
   bishops of all the districts of the East continually resided in
   Constantinople, in order to present all kinds of interests to the
   emperor. These concerns of distant bishops were generally referred by
   the emperor to the bishop of Constantinople and his council, the
   sunodos endemousa, as it was called, that is, a council of the bishops
   resident (endemounton) in Constantinople, under his presidency. In this
   way his trespasses even upon the bounds of other patriarchs obtained
   the right of custom by consent of parties, if not the sanction of
   church legislation. Nectarius, who was not elected till after that
   council, claimed the presidency at a council in 394, over the two
   patriarchs who were present, Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of
   Antioch; decided the matter almost alone; and thus was the first to
   exercise the primacy over the entire East. Under his successor,
   Chrysostom, the compass of the see extended itself still farther, and,
   according to Theodoret, [510] stretched over the capital, over all
   Thrace with its six provinces, over all Asia (Asia proconsularis) with
   eleven provinces, and over Pontus, which likewise embraced eleven
   provinces; thus covering twenty-eight provinces in all. In the year
   400, Chrysostom went "by request to Ephesus," to ordain there
   Heraclides of Ephesus, and at the same time to institute six bishops in
   the places of others deposed for simony. [511] His second successor,
   Atticus, about the year 421, procured from the younger Theodosius a
   law, that no bishop should be ordained in the neighboring dioceses
   without the consent of the bishop of Constantinople. [512] This power
   still needed the solemn sanction of a general council, before it could
   have a firm legal foundation. It received this sanction at Chalcedon.

   The fourth ecumenical council, held at Chalcedon in 451 confirmed and
   extended the power of the bishop of Constantinople, by ordaining in the
   celebrated twenty-eighth canon:

   "Following throughout the decrees of the holy fathers, and being
   "acquainted with the recently read canon of the hundred and fifty
   bishops [i.e. the third canon of the second ecumenical council of 381],
   we also have determined and decreed the same in reference to the
   prerogatives of the most holy church of Constantinople or New Rome. For
   with reason did the fathers confer prerogatives (ta presbeia) on the
   throne [the episcopal chair] of ancient Rome, on account of her
   character as the imperial city (dia to basileuein); and, moved by the
   same consideration, the hundred and fifty bishops recognized the same
   prerogatives (ta isa spresbeia) also in the most holy throne of New
   Rome; with good reason judging, that the city, which is honored with
   the imperial dignity and the senate [i.e. where the emperor and senate
   reside], and enjoys the same [municipal] privileges as the ancient
   imperial Rome, should also be equally elevated in ecclesiastical
   respects, and be the second after he(deuteran met ekeinen.].s

   "And [we decree] that of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia [Asia
   proconsularis], and Thrace, only the metropolitans, but in such
   districts of those dioceses as are occupied by barbarians, also the
   [ordinary] bishops, be ordained by the most holy throne of the most
   holy church at Constantinople; while of course every metropolitan in
   those dioceses ordains the new bishops of a province in concurrence
   with the existing bishops of that province, as is directed in the
   divine (theiois) canons. But the metropolitans of those dioceses, as
   already said, shall be ordained by the archbishop (archiepiskopou) of
   Constantinople, after they shall have been unanimously elected in the
   usual way, and he [the archbishop of Constantinople] shall have been
   informed of it."

   We have divided this celebrated Chalcedonian canon into two parts,
   though in the Greek text the parts are (by Kai oHuste) closely
   connected. The first part assigns to the bishop of Constantinople the
   second rank among the patriarchs, and is simply a repetition and
   confirmation of the third canon of the council of Constantinople; the
   second part goes farther, and sanctions the supremacy, already actually
   exercised by Chrysostom and his successors, of the patriarch of
   Constantinople, not only over the diocese of Thrace, but also over the
   dioceses of Asia Minor and Pontus, and gives him the exclusive right to
   ordain both the metropolitans of these three dioceses, and all the
   bishops of the barbarians [513] within those bounds. This gave him a
   larger district than any other patriarch of the East. Subsequently an
   edict of the emperor Justinian, in 530, added to him the special
   prerogative of receiving appeals from the other patriarchs, and thus of
   governing the whole Orient.

   The council of Chalcedon in this decree only followed consistently the
   oriental principle of politico-ecclesiastical division. Its intention
   was to make the new political capital also the ecclesiastical capital
   of the East, to advance its bishop over the bishops of Alexandria and
   Antioch, and to make him as nearly as possible equal to the bishop of
   Rome. Thus was imposed a wholesome check on the ambition of the
   Alexandrian patriarch, who in various ways, as the affair of Theophilus
   and Dioscurus shows, had abused his power to the prejudice of the
   church.

   But thus, at the same time, was roused the jealousy of the bishop of
   Rome, to whom a rival in Constantinople, with equal prerogatives, was
   far more dangerous than a rival in Alexandria or Antioch. Especially
   offensive must it have been to him, that the council of Chalcedon said
   not a word of the primacy of Peter, and based the power of the Roman
   bishop, like that of the Constantinopolitan, on political grounds;
   which was indeed not erroneous, yet only half of the truth, and in that
   respect unfair.

   Just here, therefore, is the point, where the Eastern church entered
   into a conflict with the Western, which continues to this day. The
   papal delegates protested against the twenty-eighth canon of the
   Chalcedonian council, on the spot, in the sixteenth and last session of
   the council; but in vain, though their protest was admitted to record.
   They appealed to the sixth canon of the Nicene council, according to
   the enlarged Latin version, which, in the later addition, "Ecclesia
   Romana semper habuit primatum," seems to assign the Roman bishop a
   position above all the patriarchs, and drops Constantinople from
   notice; whereupon the canon was read to them in its original form from
   the Greek Acts, without that addition, together with the first three
   canons of the second ecumenical council with their express
   acknowledgment of the patriarch of Constantinople in the second rank.
   [514] After the debate on this point, the imperial commissioners thus
   summed up the result: "From the whole discussion, and from what has
   been brought forward on either side, we acknowledge that the primacy
   over all (pro panton ta proteia) and the most eminent rank (kai ten
   exeireton timen) are to continue with the archbishop of old Rome; but
   that also the archbishop of New Rome should enjoy the same precedence
   of honor (ta presbeia tes times), and have the right to ordain the
   metropolitans in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace," &c. Now
   they called upon the council to declare whether this was its opinion;
   whereupon the bishops gave their full, emphatic consent, and begged to
   be dismissed. The commissioners then closed the transactions with the
   words: "What we a little while ago proposed, the whole council hath
   ratified;" that is, the prerogative granted to the church of
   Constantinople is confirmed by the council in spite of the protest of
   the legates of Rome. [515]

   After the council, the Roman bishop, Leo, himself protested in three
   letters of the 22d May, 452; the first of which was addressed to the
   emperor Marcian, the second to the empress Pulcheria, the third to
   Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople. [516] He expressed his
   satisfaction with the doctrinal results of the council, but declared
   the elevation of the bishop of Constantinople to the patriarchal
   dignity to be a work of pride and ambition--the humble, modest
   pope!--to be an attack upon the rights of other Eastern
   metropolitans--the invader of the same rights in Gaul!--especially upon
   the rights of the Roman see guaranteed by the council of Nice--on the
   authority of a Roman interpolation--and to be destructive of the peace
   of the church--which the popes have always sacredly kept! He would hear
   nothing of political considerations as the source of the authority of
   his chair, but pointed rather to Divine institution and the primacy of
   Peter. Leo speaks here with great reverence of the first ecumenical
   council, under the false impression that that council in its sixth
   canon acknowledged the primacy of Rome; but with singular indifference
   of the second ecumenical council, on account of its third canon, which
   was confirmed at Chalcedon. He charges Anatolius with using for his own
   ambition a council, which had been called simply for the extermination
   of heresy and the establishment of the faith. But the canons of the
   Nicene council, inspired by the Holy Ghost, could be superseded by no
   synod, however great; and all that came in conflict with them was void.
   He exhorted Anatolius to give up his ambition, and reminded him of the
   words: Tene quod habes, ne alius accipiat coronam tuam. [517]

   But this protest could not change the decree of the council nor the
   position of the Greek church in the matter, although, under the
   influence of the emperor, Anatolius wrote an humble letter to Leo. The
   bishops of Constantinople asserted their rank, and were sustained by
   the Byzantine emperors. The twenty-eighth canon of the Chalcedonian
   council was expressly confirmed by Justinian I., in the 131st Novelle
   (c. 1), and solemnly renewed by the Trullan council (can. 36), but was
   omitted in the Latin collections of canons by Prisca, Dionysius,
   Exiguus, and Isidore. The loud contradiction of Rome gradually died
   away; yet she has never formally acknowledged this canon, except during
   the Latin empire and the Latin patriarchate at Constantinople, when the
   fourth Lateran council, under Innocent III., in 1215, conceded that the
   patriarch of Constantinople should hold the next rank after the
   patriarch of Rome, before those of Alexandria and Antioch. [518]

   Finally, the bishop of Jerusalem, after long contests with the
   metropolitan of Caesarea and the patriarch of Antioch, succeeded in
   advancing himself to the patriarchal dignity; but his distinction
   remained chiefly a matter of honor, far below the other patriarchates
   in extent of real power. Had not the ancient Jerusalem, in the year 70,
   been left with only a part of the city wall and three gates to mark it,
   it would doubtless, being the seat of the oldest Christian
   congregation, have held, as in the time of James, a central position in
   the hierarchy. Yet as it was, a reflection of the original dignity of
   the mother city fell upon the new settlement of Aelia Capitolina,
   which, after Adrian, rose upon the venerable ruins. The pilgrimage of
   the empress Helena, and the magnificent church edifices of her son on
   the holy places, gave Jerusalem a new importance as the centre of
   devout pilgrimage from all quarters of Christendom. Its bishop was
   subordinate, indeed, to the metropolitan of Caesarea, but presided with
   him (probably secundo loco) at the Palestinian councils. [519] The
   council of Nice gave him an honorary precedence among the bishops,
   though without affecting his dependence on the metropolitan of
   Caesarea. At least this seems to be the meaning of the short and some.
   what obscure seventh canon: "Since it is custom and old tradition, that
   the bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem) should be honored, he shall also enjoy
   the succession of honor, [520] while the metropolis (Caesarea)
   preserves the dignity allotted to her." The legal relation of the two
   remained for a long time uncertain, till the fourth ecumenical council,
   at its seventh session, confirmed the bishop of Jerusalem in his
   patriarchal rank, and assigned to him the three provinces of Palestine
   as a diocese, without opposition.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [505] Accordingly Pope Nicolas, in 866, in a letter to the Bulgarian
   prince Bogoris, would acknowledge only the bishops of Rome, Alexandria,
   and Antioch as patriarchs in the proper sense, because they presided
   over apostolic churches; whereas Constantinople was not of apostolic
   founding, and was not even mentioned by the most venerable of all
   councils, the Nicene; Jerusalem was named indeed by these councils, but
   only under the name of Aelia.

   [506] In the oldest Latin Cod. canonum (in Mansi, vi. 1186) this canon
   is preceded by the important words: Ecclesia Romana semper habuit
   primatum. These are, however, manifestly spurious, being originally no
   part of the canon itself, but a superscription, which gave an
   expression to the Roman inference from the Nicene canon. Comp.
   Gieseler, i. 2, § 93, note 1; and Hefele, Hist. of Councils, i. 384
   sqq.

   [507] So Greenwood also views the matter, Cathedra Petri, 1859, vol. i.
   p. 181: "It was manifestly not the object of this canon to confer any
   new jurisdiction upon the church of Alexandria, but simply to confirm
   its customary prerogative. By way of illustration, it places that
   prerogative, whatever it was, upon the same level with that of the two
   other eparchal churches of Rome and Antioch. Moreover, the words of the
   canon disclose no other ground of claim but custom; and the customs of
   each eparchia are restricted to the territorial limits of the diocese
   or eparchia itself. And though, within those limits, the several
   customary rights and prerogatives may have differed, yet beyond them no
   jurisdiction of any kind could, by virtue of this canon, have any
   existence at all."

   [508] Conc. Constant. i. can 3: Ton mentoi Kostantinoupoleos episkopon
   echein ta presbeia tes times, meta ton tes Rhomes episkopon, dia to
   einai auten nean Rhomen. This canon is quoted also by Socrates, v. 8,
   and Sozomen, vii. 9, and confirmed by the council of Chalcedon (see
   below); so that it must be from pure dogmatical bias, that Baronius
   (Annal. ad ann. 381, n. 35, 36) questions its genuineness

   [509] The latter is not, indeed, expressly said in the above canon,
   which seems to speak only of an honorary precedence. But the canon was
   so understood by the bishops of Constantinople, and by the historians
   Socrates (v. 8) and Theodoret (Epist. 86, ad Flavianum), and so
   interpreted by the Chalcedonian council (can. 28). The relation of the
   bishop of Constantinople to the metropolitan of Heraclea, however,
   remained for a long time uncertain, and at the council ad Quercum, 403,
   in the affair of Chrysostom, Paul of Heraclea took the presidency,
   though the patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria was present. Comp. Le
   Quien, tom. i. p. 18; and Wiltsch, i. p. 139.

   [510] H. E. lib. v. cap. 28.

   [511] According to Sozomen it was thirteen, according to Theophilus of
   Alexandria at the council ad Quercum seventeen bishops, whom he
   instituted; and this act was charged against him as an unheard-of
   crime. See Wiltsch, i. 141.

   [512] Socrates, H. E. l. vii. 28, where such a law is incidentally
   mentioned. The inhabitants of Cyzicus in the Hellespont, however,
   transgressed the law, on the presumption that it was merely a personal
   privilege of Atticus.

   [513] Among the barbarian tribes, over whom the bishops of
   Constantinople exercised an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were the Huns
   on the Bosphorus, whose king, Gorda, received baptism in the time of
   Justinian; the Herulians, who received the Christian faith in 527; the
   Abasgians and Alanians on the Euxine sea, who about the same time
   received priests from Constantinople. Comp. Wiltsch, i. 144 and 145.

   [514] This correction of the Roman legates is so little to the taste of
   the Roman Catholic historians, especially the ultramontane, that the
   Ballerini, in their edition of the works of Leo the Great, tom. iii. p.
   xxxvii. sqq., and even Hefele, Conciliengesch. i. p. 385, and ii. p.
   522, have without proof declared the relevant passage in the Greek Acts
   of the council of Chalcedon a later interpolation. Hefele, who can but
   concede the departure of the Latin version from the original text of
   the sixth canon of Nice, thinks, however, that the Greek text was not
   read in Chalcedon, because even this bore against the elevation of
   Constantinople, and therefore in favor of the Roman legates. But the
   Roman legates, as also Leo in his protest against the 28th decree of
   Chalcedon, laid chief stress upon the Roman addition, Ecclesia Romana
   semper habuit primatum, and considered the equalization of any other
   patriarch with the bishop of Rome incompatible with it. Since the
   legates, as is conceded, appealed to the Nicene canon, the Greeks had
   first to meet this appeal, before they passed to the canons of the
   council of Constantinople. Only the two together formed a sufficient
   answer to the Roman protest.

   [515] Mansi, vii. p. 446-454; Harduin, ii, 639-643; Hefele, ii. 524,
   525.

   [516] Leo, Epist. 104, 105, and 106 (al, Ep. 78-80). Comp. Hefele, l.c.
   ii. 530 sqq.

   [517] Rev. iii. 11.

   [518] Harduin, tom. vii. 23; Schröckh, xvii. 43; and Hefele, ii. 544.

   [519] Comp. Eusebius, himself the metropolitan of Caesarea, H. E. v.
   23. He gives the succession of the bishops of Jerusalem, as well as of
   Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, while he omits those of Caesarea.

   [520] Akolouthia tes times; which is variously interpreted. Comp.
   Hefele, i. 389 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 57. The Rival Patriarchs of Old and New Rome.

   Thus at the close of the fourth century we see the Catholic church of
   the Graeco-Roman empire under the oligarchy of five coordinate and
   independent patriarchs, four in the East and one in the West. But the
   analogy of the political constitution, and the tendency toward a
   visible, tangible representation of the unity of the church, which had
   lain at the bottom of the development of the hierarchy from the very
   beginnings of the episcopate, pressed beyond oligarchy to monarchy;
   especially in the West. Now that the empire was geographically and
   politically severed into East and West, which, after the death of
   Theodosius, in 395, had their several emperors, and were never
   permanently reunited, we can but expect in like manner a double head in
   the hierarchy. This we find in the two patriarchs of old Rome and New
   Rome; the one representing the Western or Latin church, the other the
   Eastern or Greek. Their power and their relation to each other we must
   now more carefully observe.

   The organization of the church in the East being so largely influenced
   by the political constitution, the bishop of the imperial capital could
   not fail to become the most powerful of the four oriental patriarchs.
   By the second and fourth ecumenical councils, as we have already seen,
   his actual preëminence was ratified by ecclesiastical sanction, and he
   was designated to the foremost dignity. [521] From Justinian I. he
   further received supreme appellate jurisdiction, and the honorary title
   of ecumenical patriarch, which he still continues to bear. [522] He
   ordained the other patriarchs, not seldom decided their deposition or
   institution by his influence, and used every occasion to interfere in
   their affairs, and assert his supreme authority, though the popes and
   their delegates at the imperial court incessantly protested. The
   patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were distracted and
   weakened in the course of the fifth and sixth centuries by the tedious
   monophysite controversies, and subsequently, after the year 622, were
   reduced to but a shadow by the Mohammedan conquests. The patriarchate
   of Constantinople, on the contrary, made important advances southwest
   and north; till, in its flourishing period, between the eighth and
   tenth centuries, it embraced, besides its original diocese, Calabria,
   Sicily, and all the provinces of Illyricum, the Bulgarians, and Russia.
   Though often visited with destructive earthquakes and conflagrations,
   and besieged by Persians, Arabians, Hungarians, Russians, Latins, and
   Turks, Constantinople maintained itself to the middle of the fifteenth
   century as the seat of the Byzantine empire and centre of the Greek
   church. The patriarch of Constantinople, however, remained virtually
   only primus inter pares, and has never exercised a papal supremacy over
   his colleagues in the East, like that of the pope over the
   metropolitans of the West; still less has he arrogated, like his rival
   in ancient Rome, the sole dominion of the entire church. Toward the
   bishop of Rome he claimed only equality of rights and coordinate
   dignity.

   In this long contest between the two leading patriarchs of Christendom,
   the patriarch of Rome at last carried the day. The monarchical tendency
   of the hierarchy was much stronger in the West than in the East, and
   was urging a universal monarchy in the church.

   The patriarch of Constantinople enjoyed indeed the favor of the
   emperor, and all the benefit of the imperial residence. New Rome was
   most beautifully and most advantageously situated for a metropolis of
   government, of commerce, and of culture, on the bridge between two
   continents; and it formed a powerful bulwark against the barbarian
   conquests. It was never desecrated by an idol temple, but was founded a
   Christian city. It fostered the sciences and arts, at a time when the
   West was whelmed by the wild waves of barbarism; it preserved the
   knowledge of the Greek language and literature through the middle ages;
   and after the invasion of the Turks it kindled by its fugitive scholars
   the enthusiasm of classic studies in the Latin church, till Greece rose
   from the dead with the New Testament in her hand, and held the torch
   for the Reformation.

   But the Roman patriarch had yet greater advantages. In him were united,
   as even the Greek historian Theodoret concedes, [523] all the outward
   and the inward, the political and the spiritual conditions of the
   highest eminence.

   In the first place, his authority rested on an ecclesiastical and
   spiritual basis, reaching back, as public opinion granted, through an
   unbroken succession, to Peter the apostle; while Constantinople was in
   no sense an apostolica sedes, but had a purely political origin,
   though, by transfer, and in a measure by usurpation, it had possessed
   itself of the metropolitan rights of Ephesus [524] Hence the popes
   after Leo appealed almost exclusively to the divine origin of their
   dignity, and to the primacy of the prince of the apostles over the
   whole church.

   Then, too, considered even in a political point of view, old Rome had a
   far longer and grander imperial tradition to show, and was identified
   in memory with the bloom of the empire; while New Rome marked the
   beginning of its decline. When the Western empire fell into the hands
   of the barbarians, the Roman bishop was the only surviving heir of this
   imperial past, or, in the well-known dictum of Hobbes, "the ghost of
   the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof."

   Again, the very remoteness of Rome from the imperial court was
   favorable to the development of a hierarchy independent of all
   political influence and intrigue; while the bishop of Constantinople
   had to purchase the political advantages of the residence at the cost
   of ecclesiastical freedom. The tradition of the donatio Constantini,
   though a fabrication of the eighth century, has thus much truth: that
   the transfer of the imperial residence to the East broke the way for
   the temporal power and the political independence of the papacy.

   Further, amidst the great trinitarian and christological controversies
   of the Nicene and post-Nicene age, the popes maintained the powerful
   prestige of almost undeviating ecumenical orthodoxy and doctrinal
   stability; [525] while the see of Constantinople, with its Grecian
   spirit of theological restlessness and disputation, was sullied with
   the Arian, the Nestorian, the Monophysite, and other heresies, and was
   in general, even in matters of faith, dependent on the changing humors
   of the court. Hence even contending parties in the East were accustomed
   to seek counsel and protection from the Roman chair, and oftentimes
   gave that see the coveted opportunity to put the weight of its decision
   into the scale. This occasional practice then formed a welcome basis
   for a theory of jurisdiction. The Roma locuta est assumed the character
   of a supreme and final judgment. Rome learned much and forgot nothing.
   She knew how to turn every circumstances with consummate administrative
   tact, to her own advantage.

   Finally, though the Greek church, down to the fourth ecumenical
   council, was unquestionably the main theatre of church history and the
   chief seat of theological learning, yet, according to the universal law
   of history, "Westward the star of empire takes its way," the Latin
   church, and consequently the Roman patriarchate, already had the future
   to itself. While the Eastern patriarchates were facilitating by
   internal quarrels and disorder the conquests of the false prophet, Rome
   was boldly and victoriously striking westward, and winning the
   barbarian tribes of Europe to the religion of the cross.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [521] Ta presbeia tes times... dia to heinai auten [i.e.
   Constantinople] nean Rhomen. Comp. § 56.

   [522] The title oikomenikos patriarches, universalisepiscopus, had
   before been used in flattery by oriental patriarchs, and the later
   Roman bishops bore it, in spite of the protest of Gregory I., without
   scruple. The statement of popes Gregory I. and Leo IX., that the
   council of Chalcedon conferred on the Roman bishop Leo the title of
   universal episcopus, and that he rejected it, is erroneous. No trace of
   it can be found either in the Acts of the councils or in the epistles
   of Leo. In the Acts, Leo is styled ho hagiotatos kai makariotatos
   archiepiskopos tes megales kai presbuteras Rhomes; which, however, in
   the Latin Acts sent by Leo to the Gallican bishops, was thus enlarged:
   "Sanctus et beatissimus Papa, caput universalis ecclesiae, Leo." The
   papal legates at Chalcedon subscribed themselves: Vicarii apostolici
   universalis ecclesiae papae, which the Greeks translated: tes
   oikoumenikes ekklesias episkopou. Hence probably arose the error of
   Gregory I. The popes wished to be papae universalis ecclesiae, not
   episcopi or patriarchae universales; no doubt because the latter
   designation put them on a level with the Eastern patriarchs. Comp.
   Gieseler, i. 2, p. 192, not. 20, and p. 228, not. 72; and Hefele, ii.
   525 sq.

   [523] Epist. 113, to Pope Leo I.

   [524] That the apostle Andrew brought the gospel to the ancient
   Byzantium, is an entirely unreliable legend of later times.

   [525] One exception is the brief pontificate of the Arian, Felix II,
   whom the emperor Constantius, in 355, forcibly enthroned during the
   exile of Liberius, and who is regarded by some as an illegitimate
   anti-pope. The accounts respecting him are, however, very conflicting,
   and so are the opinions of even Roman Catholic historians. Liberius
   also, in 357, lapsed for a short time into Arianism that he might be
   recalled from exile. Another and later exception is Pope Honorius, whom
   even the sixth ecumenical council of Constantinople, 681, anathematized
   for Monothelite heresy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 58. The Latin Patriarch.

   These advantages of the patriarch of Rome over the patriarch of
   Constantinople are at the same time the leading causes of the rise of
   the papacy, which we must now more closely pursue.

   The papacy is undeniably the result of a long process of history.
   Centuries were employed in building it, and centuries have already been
   engaged upon its partial destruction. Lust of honor and of power, and
   even open fraud, [526] have contributed to its development; for human
   nature lies hidden under episcopal robes, with its steadfast
   inclination to abuse the power intrusted to it; and the greater the
   power, the stronger is the temptation, and the worse the abuse. But
   behind and above these human impulses lay the needs of the church and
   the plans of Providence, and these are the proper basis for explaining
   the rise, as well as the subsequent decay, of the papal dominion over
   the countries and nations of Europe.

   That Providence which moves the helm of the history of world and church
   according to an eternal plan, not only prepares in silence and in a
   secrecy unknown even to themselves the suitable persons for a given
   work, but also lays in the depths of the past the foundations of mighty
   institutions, that they may appear thoroughly furnished as soon as the
   time may demand them. Thus the origin and gradual growth of the Latin
   patriarchate at Rome looked forward to the middle age, and formed part
   of the necessary, external outfit of the church for her disciplinary
   mission among the heathen barbarians. The vigorous hordes who destroyed
   the West-Roman empire were to be themselves built upon the ruins of the
   old civilization, and trained by an awe-inspiring ecclesiastical
   authority and a firm hierarchical organization, to Christianity and
   freedom, till, having come of age, they should need the legal
   schoolmaster no longer, and should cast away his cords from them. The
   Catholic hierarchy, with its pyramid-like culmination in the papacy,
   served among the Romanic and Germanic peoples. until the time of the
   Reformation, a purpose similar to that of the Jewish theocracy and the
   old Roman empire respectively in the inward and outward preparation for
   Christianity. The full exhibition of this pedagogic purpose belongs to
   the history of the middle age; but the foundation for it we find
   already being laid in the period before us.

   The Roman bishop claims, that the four dignities of bishop,
   metropolitan, patriarch, and pope or primate of the whole church, are
   united in himself. The first three offices must be granted him in all
   historical justice; the last is denied him by the Greek church, and by
   the Evangelical, and by all non-Catholic sects.

   His bishopric is the city of Rome, with its cathedral church of St.
   John Lateran, which bears over its main entrance the inscription:
   Omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput; thus remarkably
   outranking even the church of St. Peter--as if Peter after all were not
   the first and highest apostle, and had to yield at last to the
   superiority of John, the representative of the ideal church of the
   future. Tradition says that the emperor Constantine erected this
   basilica by the side of the old Lateran palace, which had come down
   from heathen times, and gave the palace to Pope Sylvester; and it
   remained the residence of the popes and the place of assembly for their
   councils (the Lateran councils) till after the exile of Avignon, when
   they took up their abode in the Vatican beside the ancient church of
   St. Peter.

   As metropolitan or archbishop, the bishop of Rome had immediate
   jurisdiction over the seven suffragan bishops, afterward called
   cardinal bishops, of the vicinity: Ostia, Portus, Silva candida,
   Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and Albanum.

   As patriarch, he rightfully stood on equal footing with the four
   patriarchs of the East, but had a much larger district and the primacy
   of honor. The name is here of no account, since the fact stands fast.
   The Roman bishops called themselves not patriarchs, but popes, that
   they might rise the sooner above their colleagues; for the one name
   denotes oligarchical power, the other, monarchical. But in the Eastern
   church and among modern Catholic historians the designation is also
   quite currently applied to Rome.

   The Roman patriarchal circuit primarily embraced the ten suburban
   provinces, as they were called, which were under the political
   jurisdiction of the Roman deputy, the Vicarius Urbis; including the
   greater part of Central Italy, all Upper Italy, and the islands of
   Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. [527] In its wider sense, however, it
   extended gradually over the entire west of the Roman empire, thus
   covering Italy, Gaul, Spain, Illyria, southeastern Britannia, and
   northwestern Africa. [528]

   The bishop of Rome was from the beginning the only Latin patriarch, in
   the official sense of the word. He stood thus alone, in the first
   place, for the ecclesiastical reason, that Rome was the only sedes
   apostolica in the West, while in the Greek church three patriarchates
   and several other episcopal sees, such as Ephesus, Thessalonica, and
   Corinth, shared the honor of apostolic foundation. Then again, he stood
   politically alone, since Rome was the sole metropolis of the West,
   while in the East there were three capitals of the empire,
   Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Hence Augustine, writing from
   the religious point of view, once calls Pope Innocent I. the "ruler of
   the Western church;" [529] and the emperor Justinian, on the ground of
   political distribution, in his 109th Novelle, where he speaks of the
   ecclesiastical division of the whole world, mentions only five known
   patriarchates, and therefore only one patriarchate of the West. The
   decrees of the ecumenical councils, also, know no other Western
   patriarchate than the Roman, and this was the sole medium through which
   the Eastern church corresponded with the Western. In the great
   theological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries the Roman
   bishop appears uniformly as the representative and the organ of all
   Latin Christendom.

   It was, moreover, the highest interest of all orthodox churches in the
   West, amidst the political confusion and in conflict with the Arian
   Goths, Vandals, and Suevi, to bind themselves closely to a common
   centre, and to secure the powerful protection of a central authority.
   This centre they could not but find in the primitive apostolic church
   of the metropolis of the world. The Roman bishops were consulted in
   almost all important questions of doctrine or of discipline. After the
   end of the fourth century they issued to the Western bishops in reply,
   pastoral epistles and decretal letters, [530] in which they decided the
   question at first in the tone of paternal counsel, then in the tone of
   apostolic authority, making that which had hitherto been left to free
   opinion, a fixed statute. The first extant decretal is the Epistola of
   Pope Siricius to the spanish bishop Himerius, a.d. 385, which contains,
   characteristically, a legal enforcement of priestly celibacy, thus of
   an evidently unapostolic institution; but in this Siricius appeals to
   "generalia decreta," which his predecessor Liberius had already issued.
   In like manner the Roman bishops repeatedly caused the assembling of
   general or patriarchal councils of the West (synodos occidentales),
   like the synod of Axles in 314. After the sixth and seventh centuries
   they also conferred the pallium on the archbishops of Salona, Ravenna,
   Messina, Syracuse, Palermo, Arles, Autun, Sevilla, Nicopolis (in
   Epirus), Canterbury, and other metropolitans, in token of their
   superior jurisdiction. [531]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [526] Recall the interpolations of papistic passages in the works of
   Cyprian; the Roman enlargement of the sixth canon of Nice; the citation
   of the Sardican canon under the name and the authority of the Nicene
   council; and the later notorious pseudo-Isidorian decretals. The popes,
   to be sure, were not the original authors of these falsifications, but
   they used them freely and repeatedly for their purposes.

   [527] Concil. Nicaean. of 325, can. 6, in the Latin version of Rufinus
   (Hist. Eccl. x. 6): "Et ut apud Alexandria et in urbe Roma vetusta
   consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Ægypti, vel hic suburbicariarum
   ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat." The words suburb. eccl. are wanting
   in the Greek original, and are a Latin definition of the patriarchal
   diocese of Rome at the end of the fourth century. Since the seventeenth
   century they have given rise to a long controversy among the learned.
   The jurist Gothofredus and his friend Salmasius limited the regiones
   suburbicariae to the small province of the Praefectus Urbis, i.e. to
   the city of Rome with the immediate vicinity to the hundredth
   milestone; while the Jesuit Sirmond extended it to the much greater
   official district of the Vicarius Urbis, viz., the ten provinces of
   Campania, Tuscia with Umbria, Picenum suburbicarium, Valeria, Samnium,
   Apulia with Calabria, Lucania and Brutii, Sicilia, Sardinia, and
   Corsica. The comparison of the Roman bishop with the Alexandrian in the
   sixth canon of the Nicene council favors the latter view; since even
   the Alexandrian diocese likewise stretched over several provinces. The
   Prisca, however--a Latin collection of canons from the middle of the
   fifth century--has perhaps hit the truth of the matter, in saying, in
   its translation of the canon in question: "Antiqui moris est ut urbis
   Romae episcopus habeat principatum, ut suburbicaria loca [i.e. here, no
   doubt, the smaller province of the Praefectus] et omnem provinciam suam
   [i.e. the larger district of the Vicarius, or a still wider, indefinite
   extent] sollicitudine sua gubernet." Comp. Mansi, Coll. Conc. vi. 1127,
   and Hefele, i. 380 sqq.

   [528] According to the political division of the empire, the Roman
   patriarchate embraced in the fifth century three praefectures, which
   were divided into eight political dioceses and sixty-nine provinces.
   These are, (1) the praefecture of Italy, with the three dioceses of
   Italy, Illyricum, and Africa; (2) the praefectum Galliarum, with the
   dioceses of Gaul, Spain, and Britain; (3) the praefecture of Illyricum
   (not to be confounded with the province of Illyria, which belonged to
   the praefecture of Italy), which, after 879, was separated indeed from
   the Western empire, as Illyricum orientale, but remained
   ecclesiastically connected with Rome, and embraced the two dioceses of
   Macedonia and Dacia. Comp. Wiltsch, l.c. i. 67 sqq.; Maassen, p. 125;
   and Hefele, i. 383.

   [529] Contra Julianum, lib. i. cap. 6.

   [530] Epistola decretales; an expression, which, according to Gieseler
   and others, occurs first about 500, in the so-called decretum Gelasii
   de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis.

   [531] See the information concerning the conferring of the pallium in
   Wiltsch, i. 68 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 59. Conflicts and Conquests of the Latin Patriarchate.

   But this patriarchal power was not from the beginning and to a uniform
   extent acknowledged in the entire West. Not until the latter part of
   the sixth century did it reach the height we have above described.
   [532] It was not a divine institution, unchangeably fixed from the
   beginning for all times, like a Biblical article of faith; but the
   result of a long process of history, a human ecclesiastical institution
   under providential direction. In proof of which we have the following
   incontestable facts:

   In the first place, even in Italy, several metropolitans maintained,
   down to the close of our period, their own supreme headship,
   independent of Roman and all other jurisdiction. [533] The archbishops
   of Milan, who traced their church to the apostle Barnabas, came into no
   contact with the pope till the latter part of the sixth century, and
   were ordained without him or his pallium. Gregory I., in 593, during
   the ravages of the Longobards, was the first who endeavored to exercise
   patriarchal rights there: he reinstated an excommunicated presbyter,
   who had appealed to him. [534] The metropolitans of Aquileia, who
   derived their church from the evangelist Mark, and whose city was
   elevated by Constantine the Great to be the capital of Venetia and
   Istria, vied with Milan, and even with Rome, calling themselves
   "patriarchs," and refusing submission to the papal jurisdiction even
   under Gregory the Great. [535] The bishop of Ravenna likewise, after
   408, when the emperor Honorius selected that city for his residence,
   became a powerful metropolitan, with jurisdiction over fourteen
   bishoprics. Nevertheless he received the pallium from Gregory the
   Great, and examples occur of ordination by the Roman bishop. [536]

   The North African bishops and councils in the beginning of the fifth
   century, with all traditional reverence for the apostolic see,
   repeatedly protested, in the spirit of Cyprian, against encroachments
   of Rome, and even prohibited all appeal in church controversies from
   their own to a transmarine or foreign tribunal, upon pain of
   excommunication. [537] The occasion of this was an appeal to Rome by
   the presbyter Apiarius, who had been deposed for sundry offences by
   Bishop Urbanus, of Sicca, a disciple and friend of Augustine, and whose
   restoration was twice attempted, by Pope Zosimus in 418, and by Pope
   Coelestine in 424. From this we see that the popes gladly undertook to
   interfere for a palpably unworthy priest, and thus sacrificed the
   interests of local discipline, only to make their own superior
   authority felt. The Africans referred to the genuine Nicene canon (for
   which Zosimus had substituted the Sardican appendix respecting the
   appellate jurisdiction of Rome, of which the Nicene council knew
   nothing), and reminded the pope, that the gift of the Holy Ghost,
   needful for passing a just judgment, was not lacking to any province,
   and that he could as well inspire a whole province as a single bishop.
   The last document in the case of this appeal of Apiarius is a letter of
   the (twentieth) council of Carthage, in 424, to Pope Coelestine I., to
   the following purport: [538] "Apiarius asked a new trial, and gross
   misdeeds of his were thereby brought to light. The papal legate,
   Faustinus, has, in the face of this, in a very harsh manner demanded
   the reception of this man into the fellowship of the Africans, because
   he has appealed to the pope and been received into fellowship by him.
   But this very thing ought not to have been done. At last has Apiarius
   himself acknowledged all his crimes. The pope may hereafter no longer
   so readily give audience to those who come from Africa to Rome, like
   Apiarius, nor receive the excommunicated into church communion, be they
   bishops or priests, as the council of Nice (can. 5) has ordained, in
   whose direction bishops are included. The assumption of appeal to Rome
   is a trespass on the rights of the African church, and what has been
   [by Zosimus and his legates] brought forward as a Nicene ordinance for
   it, is not Nicene, and is not to be found in the genuine copies of the
   Nicene Acts, which have been received from Constantinople and
   Alexandria. Let the pope, therefore, in future send no more judges to
   Africa, and since Apiarius has now been excluded for his offences, the
   pope will surely not expect the African church to submit longer to the
   annoyances of the legate Faustinus. May God the Lord long preserve the
   pope, and may the pope pray for the Africans." In the Pelagian
   controversy the weak Zosimus, who, in opposition to the judgment of his
   predecessor Innocent, had at first expressed himself favorably to the
   heretics, was even compelled by the Africans to yield. The North
   African church maintained this position under the lead of the greatest
   of the Latin fathers, St. Augustine, who in other respects contributed
   more than any other theologian or bishop to the erection of the
   Catholic system. She first made submission to the Roman jurisdiction,
   in the sense of her weakness, under the shocks of the Vandals. Leo
   (440-461) was the first pope who could boast of having extended the
   diocese of Rome beyond Europe into another quarter of the globe. [539]
   He and Gregory the Great wrote to the African bishops entirely in the
   tone of paternal authority without provoking reply.

   In Spain the popes found from the first a more favorable field. The
   orthodox bishops there were so pressed in the fifth century by the
   Arian Vandals, Suevi, Alani, and soon after by the Goths, that they
   sought counsel and protection with the bishop of Rome, which, for his
   own sake, he was always glad to give. So early as 385, Siricius, as we
   have before observed, issued a decretal letter to a Spanish bishop. The
   epistles of Leo to Bishop Turibius of Asturica, and the bishops of Gaul
   and Spain, [540] are instances of the same authoritative style.
   Simplicius (467-483) appointed the bishop Zeno of Sevilla papal vicar,
   [541] and Gregory the Great, with a paternal letter, conferred the
   pallium on Leander, bishop of Sevilla. [542]

   In Gaul, Leo succeeded in asserting the Roman jurisdiction, though not
   without opposition, in the affair of the archbishop Hilary of Arles, or
   Arelate. The affair has been differently represented from the Gallican
   and the ultramontane points of view. [543] Hilary (born 403, died 449),
   first a rigid monk, then, against his will, elevated to the bishopric,
   an eloquent preacher, an energetic prelate, and the first champion of
   the freedom of the Gallican church against the pretensions of Rome, but
   himself not free from hierarchical ambition, deposed Celidonius, the
   bishop of Besançon, at a council in that city (synodus Vesontionensis),
   because he had married a widow before his ordination, and had presided
   as judge at a criminal trial and pronounced sentence of death; which
   things, according to the ecclesiastical law, incapacitated him for the
   episcopal office. This was unquestionably an encroachment on the
   province of Vienne, to which Besaçon belonged. Pope Zosimus had,
   indeed, in 417, twenty-eight years before, appointed the bishop of
   Arles, which was a capital of seven provinces, to be papal vicar in
   Gaul, and had granted him metropolitan rights in the provinces
   Viennensis, and Narbonensis prima and secunda, though with the
   reservation of causae majores. [544] The metropolitans of Vienne,
   Narbonne, and Marseilles, however, did not accept this arrangement, and
   the succeeding popes found it best to recognize again the old
   metropolitans. [545] Celidonius appealed to Leo against that act of
   Hilary. Leo, in 445, assembled a Roman council (concilium sacerdotum),
   and reinstated him, as the accusation of Hilary, who himself journeyed
   on foot in the winter to Rome, and protested most vehemently against
   the appeal, could not be proven to the satisfaction of the pope. In
   fact, he directly or indirectly caused Hilary to be imprisoned, and,
   when he escaped and fled back to Gaul, cut him off from the communion
   of the Roman church, and deprived him of all prerogatives in the
   diocese of Vienne, which had been only temporarily conferred on the
   bishop of Arles, and were by a better judgment (sententia meliore)
   taken away. He accused him of assaults on the rights of other Gallican
   metropolitans, and above all of insubordination toward the principality
   of the most blessed Peter; and he goes so far as to say: "Whoso
   disputes the primacy of the apostle Peter, can in no way lessen the
   apostle's dignity, but, puffed up by the spirit of his own pride, he
   destroys himself in hell." [546] Only out of special grace did he leave
   Hilary in his bishopric. Not satisfied with this, he applied to the
   secular arm for help, and procured from the weak Western emperor,
   Valentinian III., an edict to Aetius, the magister militum of Gaul, in
   which it is asserted, almost in the words of Leo, that the whole world
   (universitas; in Greek, oikoumene) acknowledges the Roman see as
   director and governor; that neither Hilary nor any bishop might oppose
   its commands; that neither Gallican nor other bishops should, contrary
   to the ancient custom, do anything without the authority of the
   venerable pope of the eternal city; and that all decrees of the pope
   have the force of law.

   The letter of Leo to the Gallican churches, and the edict of the
   emperor, give us the first example of a defensive and offensive
   alliance of the central spiritual and temporal powers in the pursuit of
   an unlimited sovereignty. The edict, however, could of course have
   power, at most, only in the West, to which the authority of Valentinian
   was limited. In fact, even Hilary and his successors maintained, in
   spite of Leo, the prerogatives they had formerly received from Pope
   Zosimus, and were confirmed in them by later popes. [547] Beyond this
   the issue of the contest is unknown. Hilary of Arles died in 449,
   universally esteemed and loved, without, so far as we know, having
   become formally reconciled with Rome; [548] though, notwithstanding
   this, he figures in a remarkable manner in the Roman calendar, by the
   side of his papal antagonist Leo, as a canonical saint. Undoubtedly Leo
   proceeded in this controversy far too rigorously and intemperately
   against Hilary; yet it was important that he should hold fast the right
   of appeal as a guarantee of the freedom of bishops against the
   encroachments of metropolitans. The papal despotism often proved itself
   a wholesome check upon the despotism of subordinate prelates.

   With Northern Gaul the Roman bishops came into less frequent contact;
   yet in this region also there occur, in the fourth and fifth centuries,
   examples of the successful assertion of their jurisdiction.

   The early British church held from the first a very isolated position,
   and was driven back, by the invasion of the pagan Anglo-Saxons, about
   the middle of the fifth century, into the mountains of Wales,
   Cornwallis, Cumberland, and the still more secluded islands. Not till
   the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons under Gregory the Great did a
   regular connection begin between England and Rome.

   Finally, the Roman bishops succeeded also in extending their
   patriarchal power eastward, over the praefecture of East Illyria.
   Illyria belonged originally to the Western empire, remained true to the
   Nicene faith through the Arian controversies, and for the vindication
   of that faith attached itself closely to Rome. When Gratian, in 379,
   incorporated Illyricum Orientale with the Eastern empire, its bishops
   nevertheless refused to give up their former ecclesiastical connection.
   Damasus conferred on the metropolitan Acholius, of Thessalonica, as
   papal vicar, patriarchal rights in the new praefecture. The patriarch
   of Constantinople endeavored, indeed, repeatedly, to bring this ground
   into his diocese, but in vain. Justinian, in 535, formed of it a new
   diocese, with an independent patriarch at Prima Justiniana (or Achrida,
   his native city); but this arbitrary innovation had no vitality, and
   Gregory I. recovered active intercourse with the Illyrian bishops. Not
   until the eighth century, under the emperor Leo the Isaurian, was East
   Illyria finally severed from the Roman diocese and incorporated with
   the patriarchate of Constantinople. [549]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [532] This is conceded by Hefele, i. 383 sq.: "It is, however, not to
   be mistaken, that the bishop of Rome did not everywhere, in all the
   West, exercise full patriarchal rights; that, to wit, in several
   provinces, simple bishops were ordained without his coöperation." And
   not only simple bishops, but also metropolitans. See the text.

   [533] Autokephaloi, also akephaloi, as in the East especially the
   archbishops of Cyprus and Bulgaria were called, and some other
   metropolitans, who were subject to no patriarch.

   [534] Comp. Wiltsch, i. 234.

   [535] Comp. Gregory I., Epist. l. iv. 49; and Wiltsch, i. 236 sq. To
   the metropolis of Aquileia belonged the bishopric of Verona, Tridentum
   (the Trent, since become so famous), Aemona, Altinum, Torcellum, Pola,
   Celina, Sabiona, Forum Julii, Bellunum, Concordia, Feltria, Tarvisium,
   and Vicentia.

   [536] Baron. Ann. ad ann. 433; Wiltsch, i. 69, 87.

   [537] Comp. the relevant Acts of councils in Gieseler, i. 2, p. 221
   sqq., and an extended description of this case of appeal in Greenwood,
   Cath. Petri, i. p. 299-310, and in Hefele, Concilien-Gesch. ii. 107
   sqq., 120, 123 sq.

   [538] Mansi, iii. 839 sq.

   [539] Epist. 87; Mansi, vi. 120.

   [540] Ep. 93 and 95; Mansi, vi. 131 and 132.

   [541] Mansi, vii. 972.

   [542] Greg. Ep. i. 41; Mansi, ix. 1059. Comp. Wiltsch, i. 71.

   [543] This difference shows itself in the two editions of the works of
   Leo the Great, respectively: that of the French Pasquier Quesnel, a
   Gallican and Jansenist (exiled 1681, died at Brussels 1719), which also
   contains the works, and a vindication, of Hilaryof Arles (Par. 1675, in
   2 vols.), and was condemned in 1676 by the Congregation of the Index,
   without their even reading it; and that of the two brothers Ballerini,
   which appeared in opposition to the former (Ven. 1755-1757, 3 vols.),
   and represents the Italian ultramontane side. Comp. further on this
   contest of Hilarius Arelatensis (not to be confounded with Hilarius
   Pictaviensis, Hilarius Narbonensis, and others of the same name) with
   Pope Leo, the Vita Hilarii of Honoratus Massiliensis, of about the year
   490 (printed in Mansi, vi. 461 sqq., and in the Acta Sanct. ad d. 5
   Maji); the article by Perthel, in Illgen's Zeitschrift for Hist. Theol.
   1843; Greenwood, l.c. i. p. 350-356; Milman, Lat. Christianity, i. p.
   269-276 (Amer. ed.); and the article "Hilarius" in Wetzer and Welte's
   Kirchenlexic vol. v. p. 181 sqq.

   [544] "Nisi magnitudo causae etiam nostrum exquirat examen." Gieseler,
   i. 2, p. 218; Greenwood, i. p. 299.

   [545] Comp. Bonifacii I Epist. 12 ad Hilarium Narbon. (not
   Arelatensen), a.d.422, in Gieseler, p. 219. Boniface here speaks in
   favor of the Nicene principle, that each metropolitan should rule
   simply over one province. Greenwood overlooks this change, and hence
   fully justifies Hilaryon the ground of the appointment of Zosimus. But
   even though this appointment had stood, the deposition of a bishop was
   still a causa major, which Hilary, as vicar of the pope, should have
   laid before him for ratification.

   [546] Leo, Epist. 10 (al. 89) ad Episc. provinciae Viennensis. What an
   awful perversion this of the true Christian stand-point!

   [547] The popes Vigil, 539-555, Pelagius, 555-559, and Gregory the
   Great conferred on the archbishop of Arles, besides the pallium, also
   the papal vicariate (vices). Comp. Wiltsch, i. 71 sq.

   [548] At all events, no reconciliation can be certainly proved.
   Hilarydid, indeed, according to the account of his disciple and
   biographer, who some forty years after his death encircled him with the
   halo, take some steps toward reconciliation, and sent two priests as
   delegates with a letter to the Roman prefect, Auxiliaris. The latter
   endeavored to act the mediator, but gave the delegates to understand,
   that Hilary, by his vehement boldness, had too deeply wounded the
   delicate ears of the Romans. In Leo's letter a new trespass is charged
   upon Hilary, on the rights of the bishop Projectus, after the
   deposition of Celidonius. And Hilarydied soon after this contest (449).
   Waterland ascribed to him the Athanasian Creed, though without good
   reason.

   [549] Comp. Gieseler, i. 2, p. 21 5 sqq.; and Wiltsch, i. 72 sqq., 431
   sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 60. The Papacy.

   Literature, as in § 55, and vol. i. § 110.

   At last the Roman bishop, on the ground of his divine institution, and
   as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, advanced his claim
   to be primate of the entire church, and visible representative of
   Christ, who is the invisible supreme head of the Christian world. This
   is the strict and exclusive sense of the title, Pope. [550]

   Properly speaking, this claim has never been fully realized, and
   remains to this day an apple of discord in the history of the church.
   Greek Christendom has never acknowledged it, and Latin, only under
   manifold protests, which at last conquered in the Reformation, and
   deprived the papacy forever of the best part of its domain. The
   fundamental fallacy of the Roman system is, that it identifies papacy
   and church, and therefore, to be consistent, must unchurch not only
   Protestantism, but also the entire Oriental church from its origin
   down. By the "una sancta catholica apostolica ecclesia" of the
   Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed is to be understood the whole body of
   Catholic Christians, of which the ecclesia Romana, like the churches of
   Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, is only one of the
   most prominent branches. The idea of the papacy, and its claims to the
   universal dominion of the church, were distinctly put forward, it is
   true, so early as the period before us, but could not make themselves
   good beyond the limits of the West. Consequently the papacy, as a
   historical fact, or so far as it has been acknowledged, is properly
   nothing more than the Latin patriarchate run to absolute monarchy.

   By its advocates the papacy is based not merely upon church usage, like
   the metropolitan and patriarchal power, but upon divine right; upon the
   peculiar position which Christ assigned to Peter in the well-known
   words: "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church." [551]
   This passage was at all times taken as an immovable exegetical rock for
   the papacy. The popes themselves appealed to it, times without number,
   as the great proof of the divine institution of a visible and
   infallible central authority in the church. According to this view, the
   primacy is before the apostolate, the head before the body, instead of
   the reverse.

   But, in the first place, this preëminence of Peter did not in the least
   affect the independence of the other apostles. Paul especially,
   according to the clear testimony of his epistles and the book of Acts,
   stood entirely upon his own authority, and even on one occasion, at
   Antioch, took strong ground against Peter. Then again, the personal
   position of Peter by no means yields the primacy to the Roman bishop,
   without the twofold evidence, first that Peter was actually in Rome,
   and then that he transferred his prerogatives to the bishop of that
   city. The former fact rests upon a universal tradition of the early
   church, which at that time no one doubted, but is in part weakened and
   neutralized by the absence of any clear Scripture evidence, and by the
   much more certain fact, given in the New Testament itself, that Paul
   labored in Rome, and that in no position of inferiority or
   subordination to any higher authority than that of Christ himself. The
   second assumption, of the transfer of the primacy to the Roman bishops,
   is susceptible of neither historical nor exegetical demonstration, and
   is merely an inference from the principle that the successor in office
   inherits all the official prerogatives of his predecessor. But even
   granting both these intermediate links in the chain of the papal
   theory, the double question yet remains open: first, whether the Roman
   bishop be the only successor of Peter, or share this honor with the
   bishops of Jerusalem and Antioch, in which places also Peter
   confessedly resided; and secondly, whether the primacy involve at the
   same time a supremacy of jurisdiction over the whole church, or be only
   an honorary primacy among patriarchs of equal authority and rank. The
   former was the Roman view; the latter was the Greek.

   An African bishop, Cyprian ( 258), was the first to give to that
   passage of the 16th of Matthew, innocently as it were, and with no
   suspicion of the future use and abuse of his view, a papistic
   interpretation, and to bring out clearly the idea of a perpetual
   cathedra Petri. The same Cyprian, however, whether consistently or not,
   was at the same time equally animated with the consciousness of
   episcopal equality and independence, afterward actually came out in
   bold opposition to Pope Stephen in a doctrinal controversy on the
   validity of heretical baptism, and persisted in this protest to his
   death. [552]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [550] The name papa--according to some an abbreviation of pater patrum,
   but more probably, like the kindred abbas, pappas, or papas, pa-pa,
   simply an imitation of the first prattling of children, thus equivalent
   to father--was, in the West, for a long time the honorary title of
   every bishop, as a spiritual father; but, after the fifth century, it
   became the special distinction of the patriarchs, and still later was
   assigned exclusively to the Roman bishop, and to him in an eminent
   sense, as father of the whole church. Comp. Du Cange, Glossar. s. verb.
   Papa and Pater Patrum; and Hoffmann, Lexic. univers. iv. p. 561. In the
   same exclusive sense the Italian and Spanish papa, the French pape, the
   English pope, and the German Papstor Pabst, are used. In the Greek and
   Russian churches, on the contrary, all priests are called Popes (from
   papas, papa). The titles apostolicus, vicarius Christi, summus
   pontifex, sedes apostolica, were for a considerable time given to
   various bishops and their sees, but subsequently claimed exclusively by
   the bishops of Rome.

   [551] Matt. xvi. 18: Su hei Petros, kai epi taute te petra [mark the
   change of the gender from the masculine to the feminine, from the
   person to the thing or the truth confessed--a change which disappears
   in the English and German versions] oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian, kai
   pulai hadou ou katischusousin autes. Comp. the commentators, especially
   Meyer, Lange, Alford, Wordsworth, ad loc., and my Hist. of the Apost.
   Church, § 90 and 94 (N. Y. ed. p. 350 sqq., and 374 sqq.).

   [552] Comp. vol. i. § 110.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 61. Opinions of the Fathers.

   A complete collection of the patristic utterances on the primacy of
   Peter and his successors, though from the Roman point of view, may be
   found in the work of Rev. Jos. Berington and Rev. John Kirk: "The Faith
   of Catholics confirmed by Scripture and attested by the Fathers of the
   first five centuries of the Church," 3d ed., London, 1846, vol. ii. p.
   1-112. Comp. the works quoted sub § 55, and a curious article of Prof.
   Ferd. Piper, on Rome, the eternal city, in the Evang. Jahrbuch for
   1864, p. 17-120, where the opinions of the fathers on the claims of the
   urbs aeterna and its many fortunes are brought out.

   We now pursue the development of this idea in the church fathers of the
   fourth and fifth centuries. In general they agree in attaching to Peter
   a certain primacy over the other apostles, and in considering him the
   foundation of the church in virtue of his confession of the divinity of
   Christ; while they hold Christ to be, in the highest sense, the divine
   ground and rock of the church. And herein lies a solution of their
   apparent self-contradiction in referring the petra in Matt. xvi. 18,
   now to the person of Peter, now to his confession, now to Christ. Then,
   as the bishops in general were regarded as successors of the apostles,
   the fathers saw in the Roman bishops, on the ground of the ancient
   tradition of the martyrdom of Peter in Rome, the successor of Peter and
   the heir of the primacy. But respecting the nature and prerogatives of
   this primacy their views were very indefinite and various. It is
   remarkable that the reference of the rock to Christ, which Augustine
   especially defended with great earnestness, was acknowledged even by
   the greatest pope of the middle ages, Gregory VII., in the famous
   inscription he sent with a crown to the emperor Rudolph: "Petra [i.e.,
   Christ] dedit Petro [i.e., to the apostle], Petrus [the pope] diadema
   Rudolpho." [553] It is worthy of notice, that the post-Nicene, as well
   as the ante-Nicene fathers, with all their reverence for the Roman see,
   regarded the heathenish title of Rome, urbs aeterna, as blasphemous,
   with reference to the passage of the woman sitting upon a
   scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, Rev. xvii. 3. [554]
   The prevailing opinion seems to have been, that Rome and the Roman
   empire would fall before the advent of Antichrist and the second coming
   of the Lord. [555]

   1. The views of the Latin fathers.

   The Cyprianic idea was developed primarily in North Africa, where it
   was first clearly pronounced.

   Optatus, bishop of Milevi, the otherwise unknown author of an
   anti-Donatist work about a.d. 384, is, like Cyprian, thoroughly
   possessed with the idea of the visible unity of the church; declares it
   without qualification the highest good, and sees its plastic expression
   and its surest safeguard in the immovable cathedra Petri, the prince of
   the apostles, the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who, in
   spite of his denial of Christ, continued in that relation to the other
   apostles, that the unity of the church might appear in outward fact as
   an unchangeable thing, invulnerable to human offence. All these
   prerogatives have passed to the bishops of Rome, as the successors of
   this apostle. [556]

   Ambrose of Milan ( 397) speaks indeed in very high terms of the Roman
   church, and concedes to its bishops a religious magistracy like the
   political power of the emperors of pagan Rome; [557] yet he calls the
   primacy of Peter only a "primacy of confession, not of honor; of faith,
   not of rank," [558] and places the apostle Paul on an equality with
   Peter. [559] Of any dependence of Ambrose, or of the bishops of Milan
   in general during the first six centuries, on the jurisdiction of Rome,
   no trace is to be found.

   Jerome ( 419), the most learned commentator among the Latin fathers,
   vacillates in his explanation of the petra; now, like Augustine,
   referring it to Christ, [560] now to Peter and his confession. [561] In
   his commentary on Matt. xvi., he combines the two interpretations thus:
   "As Christ gave light to the apostles, so that they were called, after
   him, the light of the world, and as they received other designations
   from the Lord; so Simon, because he believed on the rock, Christ,
   received the name Peter, and in accordance with the figure of the rock,
   it is justly said to him: 'I will build my church upon thee (super
   te),' " He recognizes in the Roman bishop the successor of Peter, but
   advocates elsewhere the equal rights of the bishops, [562] and in fact
   derives even the episcopal office, not from direct divine institution,
   but from the usage of the church and from the presidency in the
   presbyterium. [563] He can therefore be cited as a witness, at most,
   for a primacy of honor, not for a supremacy of jurisdiction. Beyond
   this even the strongest passage of his writings, in a letter to his
   friend, Pope Damasus (a.d. 376), does not go: "Away with the ambition
   of the Roman head; I speak with the successor of the fisherman and
   disciple of the cross. Following no other head than Christ, I am joined
   in the communion of faith with thy holiness, that is, with the chair of
   Peter. On that rock I know the church to be built." [564] Subsequently
   this father, who himself had an eye on the papal chair, fell out with
   the Roman clergy, and retired to the ascetic and literary solitude of
   Bethlehem, where he served the church by his pen far better than he
   would have done as the successor of Damasus.

   Augustine ( 430), the greatest theological authority of the Latin
   church, at first referred the words, "On this rock I will build my
   church," to the person of Peter, but afterward expressly retracted this
   interpretation, and considered the petra to be Christ, on the ground of
   a distinction between petra (epi taute te petra) and Petrus (su hei
   Petros); a distinction which Jerome also makes, though with the
   intimation that it is not properly applicable to the Hebrew and Syriac
   Cephas. [565] "I have somewhere said of St. Peter" thus Augustine
   corrects himself in his Retractations at the close of his life [566]
   --"that the church is built upon him as the rock; a thought which is
   sung by many in the verses of St. Ambrose:

   'Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae

   Canente, culpam diluit.' [567]

   (The Rock of the church himself

   In the cock-crowing atones his guilt.)

   But I know that I have since frequently said, that the word of the
   Lord, 'Thou art Petrus, and on this petra I will build my church,' must
   be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God;
   and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the
   church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the
   kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: 'Thou art a rock'
   (petra), but, 'Thou art Peter' (Petrus); and the rock was Christ,
   through confession of whom Simon received the name of Peter. Yet the
   reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more
   probable." In the same strain he says, in another place: "Peter, in
   virtue of the primacy of his apostolate, stands, by a figurative
   generalization, for the church .... When it was said to him, 'I will
   give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' &c., he represented
   the whole church, which in this world is assailed by various
   temptations, as if by floods and storms, yet does not fall, because it
   is founded upon a rock, from which Peter received his name. For the
   rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a
   Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after
   the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the
   Lord says, 'On this rock I will build my church' is that Peter had
   said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' On this rock,
   which then hast confessed, says he will build my church. For Christ was
   the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was
   built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is
   Jesus Christ. Thus the church, which is built upon Christ, has received
   from him, in the person of Peter, the keys of heaven; that is, the
   power of binding and loosing sins." [568] This Augustinian
   interpretation of the petra has since been revived by some Protestant
   theologians in the cause of anti-Romanism. [569] Augustine, it is true,
   unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church,
   descended from the apostles, especially from Peter, through the
   succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called
   the Roman church by eminence the sedes apostolica. [570] But on the
   other hand, like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential
   unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of
   heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church,
   which Peter was only set to represent. [571] With this view agrees the
   independent position of the North African church in the time of
   Augustine toward Rome, as we have already observed it in the case of
   the appeal of Apiarius, and as it appears in the Pelagian controversy,
   of which Augustine was the leader. This father, therefore, can at all
   events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman
   chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his
   numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and
   then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less
   importance to this matter than the Roman divines. [572]

   The later Latin fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries prefer the
   reference of the petra to Peter and his confession, and transfer his
   prerogatives to the Roman bishops as his successors, but produce no new
   arguments. Among them we mention Maximus of Turin (about 450), who,
   however, like Ambrose, places Paul on a level with Peter; [573] then
   Orosius, and several popes; above all Leo, of whom we shall speak more
   fully in the following section.

   2. As to the Greek fathers: Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, the
   two Gregories, Ephraim, Syrus, Asterius, Cyril of Alexandria,
   Chrysostom, and Theodoret refer the petra now to the confession, now to
   the person, of Peter; sometimes to both. They speak of this apostle
   uniformly in very lofty terms, at times in rhetorical extravagance,
   calling him the "coryphaeus of the choir of apostles," the prince of
   the apostles," the "tongue of the apostles," the "bearer of the keys,"
   the "keeper of the kingdom of heaven," the "pillar," the "rock," the
   "firm foundation of the church." But, in the first place, they
   understand by all this simply an honorary primacy of Peter, to whom
   that power was but first committed, which the Lord afterward conferred
   on all the apostles alike; and, in the second place, they by no means
   favor an exclusive transfer of this prerogative to the bishop of Rome,
   but claim it also for the bishops of Antioch, where Peter, according to
   Gal. ii., sojourned a long time, and where, according to tradition, he
   was bishop, and appointed a successor.

   So Chrysostom, for instance, calls Ignatius of Antioch a "successor of
   Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved,"
   [574] and in another place says still more distinctly: "Since I have
   named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of
   Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the
   virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this
   city of ours [Antioch], to have first (en arche) had the coryphaeus of
   the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where
   the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles
   for its pastor. But after we had him for our teacher, we, did not
   retain him, but transferred him to imperial Rome." [575]

   Theodoret also, who, like Chrysostom, proceeded from the Antiochian
   school, says of the "great city of Antioch," that it has the "throne of
   Peter." [576] In a letter to Pope Leo he speaks, it is true, in very
   extravagant terms of Peter and his successors at Rome, in whom all the
   conditions, external and internal, of the highest eminence and control
   in the church are combined. [577] But in the same epistle he remarks,
   that the "thrice blessed and divine double star of Peter and Paul rose
   in the East and shed its rays in every direction;" in connection with
   which it must be remembered that he was at that time seeking protection
   in Leo against the Eutychian robber-council of Ephesus (449), which had
   unjustly deposed both himself and Flavian of Constantinople.

   His bitter antagonist also, the arrogant and overbearing Cyril of
   Alexandria, descended some years before, in his battle against
   Nestorius, to unworthy flattery, and called Pope Coelestine "the
   archbishop of the whole [Roman] world." [578] The same prelates, under
   other circumstances, repelled with proud indignation the encroachments
   of Rome on their jurisdiction.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [553] Baronius, Annal. ad ann. 1080, vol. xi. p. 704.

   [554] Hieronymus, Adv. Jovin. lib. ii. c. 38 (Opera, t. ii. p. 382),
   where he addresses Rome: "Ad te loquar, quae scriptam in fronte
   blasphemiam Christi confessione delesti." Prosper: "Eterna cum dicitur
   quae temporalis est, utique nomen est blasphemiae." Comp. Piper, l.c.
   p. 46.

   [555] So Chrysostomad 2 Thess. ii. 7; Hieronymus, Ep. cxxi. qu. 11
   (tom. i. p. 880 sq.); Augustine, De Civit. Dei, lib. xx. cap. 19.

   [556] De schismate Donatistarum, lib. ii. cap. 2, 3, and l. vii. 3. The
   work was composed while Siricius was bishop of Rome, hence about 384.

   [557] Ambr. Sermo ii. in festo Petri et Pauli: "In urbe Romae, quae
   principatum et caput obtinet nationum: scilicet ut ubi caput
   superstitionis erat, illic caput quiesceret sanctitatis, et ubi
   gentilium principes habitabant, illic ecclesiarum principes
   morerentur." In Ps. 40: "Ipse est Petrus cui dixit: Tu es Petrus ...
   ubi ergo Patrus, ibi ecclesia; ubi ecclesia, ibi mulla mors, sed vita
   eterna." Comp. the poetic passage in his Morning Hymn, in the citation
   from Augustinefurther on. But in another passage he likewise refers the
   rock to Christ, in Luc. ix. 20: "Petra est Christus," etc.

   [558] De incarnat. Domini, c. 4: "Primatum confessionis utique, non
   honoris, primatum fidei, non ordinis."

   [559] De Spiritu S. ii. 12: "Nec Paulus inferior Petro, quamvis ille
   ecclesiae fundamentum." Sermo ii. in festo P. et P., just before the
   above-quoted passage: "Ergo beati Petrus et Paulus eminent inter
   universos apostolos, et peculiari quadam praerogativa praecellunt.
   Verum inter ipsos, quis cui praeponatur, incertum est. Puto enim illos
   aequales esse meritis, qui aequales sunt passione." Augustine, too,
   once calls Paul, not Peter, caput et princeps apostolorum, and in
   another place that he tanti apostolatus meruit principatum.

   [560] Hieron. in Amos, vi. 12: "Petra Christus est qui donavit
   apostolis suis, ut ipsi quoque petrae vocentur." And in another place:
   "Ecclesia Catholica super Petram Christum stabili radici fundata est."

   [561] Adv. Jovin. l. i. cap. 26 (in Vallars. ed., tom. ii. 279), in
   reply to Jovinian's appeal to Peter in favor of marriage: "At dicis:
   super Petrum fundatur ecclesia; licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes
   apostolos fiat, et cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, et ex aequo
   super eos fortitudo ecclesiae solidetur, tamen propterea inter duodecim
   unus eligitur, ut capite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio." So
   Epist. xv. ad Damasum papam (ed. Vall. i. 37).

   [562] Comp. Epist. 146, ed. Vall. i. 1076 (or Ep. 101 ed. Bened., al.
   85) ad Evangelum: "Ubicunque fuerit episcopus, sive Romae, sive
   Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive
   Tanis [an intentional collocation of the most powerful and most obscure
   bishoprics], ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii. Potentia
   divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem
   episcopum non facit. Caeterum omnes apostolorum successores sunt."

   [563] Comp. § 52, above. J. Craigie Robertson, Hist. of the Christian
   Church to 590 (Lond. 1854), p. 286, note, finds a remarkable negative
   evidence against the papal claims in St. Jerome's Ep. 125, "where
   submission to one head is enforced on monks by the instinctive habits
   of beasts, bees, and cranes, the contentions of Esau and Jacob, of
   Romulus and Remus, the oneness of an emperor in his dominions, of a
   judge in his province, of a master in his house, of a pilot in a ship,
   of a general in an army, of a bishop, the archpresbyter, and the
   archdeacon in a church; but there is no mention of the one universal
   bishop."

   [564] Ep. xv. (alias 57) ad Damasum papam (ed. Vall. l. 37 sq.):
   "Facessat invidia: Romani culminis recedat ambitio, cum successore
   piscatoris et discipulo crucis loquor. Ego nullum primum, nisi Christum
   sequens, Beatitudini tuae, id est cathedrae Petri, communione
   consocior. Super illam petram aedificatam ecclesiam scio. Quicunque
   extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est. Si quis in Noe arca non
   fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio."

   [565] Hier. Com. in Ep. ad Galat. ii. 11, 12 (ed. Vallars. tom. vii.
   col. 409): "Non quod aliud significat Petrus, aliudCephas, sed quo quam
   nos Latine et Graece petram vocemus, hanc Hebraei et Syri, propter
   linguae inter se viciniam, Cephan, nuncupent."

   [566] Retract. l. i. c. 21.

   [567] In the Ambrosian Morning Hymn: "Aeterne rerum conditor."

   [568] Tract. in Evang. Joannis, 124, § 5. The original is quoted among
   others by Dr. Gieseler, i. 2, p. 210 (4th ed.), but with a few
   unessential omissions.

   [569] Especially by Calov in the Lutheran church, and quite recently by
   Dr. Wordsworth in the Church of England (Commentary on Matt. xvi. 18).
   But Dr. Alford decidedly protests against it, with most of the modern
   commentators.

   [570] De utilit. credendi, § 35, he traces the development of the
   church "ab apostolica sede per successiones apostolorum;" and Epist.
   43, he incidentally speaks of the "Romana ecclesia in qua semper
   apostolicae cathedrae viguit principatus." Greenwood, i. 296 sq., thus
   resolves the apparent contradiction in Augustine: "In common with the
   age in which he lived, he (St. Augustine) was himself possessed with
   the idea of a visible representative unity, and considered that unity
   as equally the subject of divine precept and institution with the
   church-spiritual itself. The spiritual unity might therefore stand upon
   the faith of Peter, while the outward and visible oneness was inherent
   in his person; so that while the church derived her esoteric and
   spiritual character from the faith which Peter had confessed, she
   received her external or executive powers from Peter through 'the
   succession of bishops' sitting in Peter's chair. Practically, indeed,
   there was little to choose between the two theories." Comp. also the
   thorough exhibition of the Augustinian theory of the Catholic church
   and her attributes by Dr. Rothe, in his work Die Anfänge der
   christlichen Kirche, i. p. 679-711.

   [571] De diversis Serm. 108: Has enim claves non homo unus, sed unitas
   accepit ecclesiae. Hinc ergo Petri excellentia praedicatur, quia ipsius
   universitatis et unitatis figuram gessit quando ei dictum est: tibi
   trado, quod omnibus traditum est, etc.

   [572] Bellarmine, in Praef. in Libr. de Pontif., calls this article
   even rem summam fidei Christiana!

   [573] Hom. v., on the feast of Peter and Paul. To the one, says he, the
   keys of knowledge were committed, to the other the keys of power."
   Eminent inter universos apostlos et peculiari quadam praerogativa
   praecellunt. Verum inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur, incertum est." The
   same sentence in Ambrose, De Spir. S. ii. 12.

   [574] In S. Ignat. Martyr., n. 4.

   [575] Hom. ii. in Principium Actorum, n. 6, tom. iii. p. 70 (ed.
   Montfaucon). The last sentence (alla prosechoresamen te basilidi Rome)
   is by some regarded as a later interpolation in favor of the papacy.
   But it contains no concession of superiority. Chrysostomimmediately
   goes on to say: "We have indeed not retained the body of Peter, but we
   have retained the faith of Peter; and while we retain his faith, we
   have himself."

   [576] Epist. 86.

   [577] Epist. 113. Comp. Bennington and Kirk, l.c. p. 91-93. In the
   Epist. 116, to Renatus, one of the three papal legates at Ephesus,
   where he entreats his intercession with Leo, he ascribes to the Roman
   see the control of the church of the world (ton kata ten oikoumenen
   ekklesion ten hegemonian), but certainly in the oriental sense of an
   honorary supervision.

   [578] Archiepiskopon pases tes oikoumenes [i. e., of the Roman empire,
   according to the well-known usus loquendi, even of the N. T., Comp.
   Luke ii. 1], patera te kai patriarchen Kelestinon ton tes megalopoleos
   Romes. Encom. in S. Mar. Deip. (tom. v. p. 384). Comp. his Ep. ix. ad
   Coelest.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 62. The Decrees of Councils on the Papal Authority.

   Much more important than the opinions of individual fathers are the
   formal decrees of the councils.

   First mention here belongs to the council of Sardica in Illyria (now
   Sofia in Bulgaria) in 343, [579] during the Arian controversy. This
   council is the most favorable of all to the Roman claims. In the
   interest of the deposed Athanasius and of the Nicene orthodoxy it
   decreed:

   (1) That a deposed bishop, who feels he has a good cause, may apply,
   out of reverence to the memory of the apostle Peter, to the Roman
   bishop Julius, and shall leave it with him either to ratify the
   deposition or to summon a new council.

   (2) That the vacant bishopric shall not be filled till the decision of
   Rome be received.

   (3) That the Roman bishop, in such a case of appeal, may, according to
   his best judgment, either institute a new trial by the bishops of a
   neighboring province, or send delegates to the spot with full power to
   decide the matter with the bishops. [580]

   Thus was plainly committed to the Roman bishops an appellate and
   revisory jurisdiction in the case of a condemned or deposed bishop even
   of the East. But in the first place this authority is not here
   acknowledged as a right already existing in practice. It is conferred
   as a new power, and that merely as an honorary right, and as pertaining
   only to the bishop Julius in person. [581] Otherwise, either this
   bishop would not be expressly named, or his successors would be named
   with him. Furthermore, the canons limit the appeal to the case of a
   bishop deposed by his comprovincials, and say nothing of other cases.
   Finally, the council of Sardica was not a general council, but only a
   local synod of the West, and could therefore establish no law for the
   whole church. For the Eastern bishops withdrew at the very beginning,
   and held an opposition council in the neighboring town of
   Philippopolis; and the city of Sardica, too, with the praefecture of
   Illyricum, at that time belonged to the Western empire and the Roman
   patriarchate: it was not detached from them till 379. The council was
   intended, indeed, to be ecumenical; but it consisted at first of only a
   hundred and seventy bishops, and after the recession of the seventy-six
   Orientals, it had only ninety-four; and even by the two hundred
   signatures of absent bishops, mostly Egyptian, to whom the acts were
   sent for their approval, the East, and even the Latin Africa, with its
   three hundred bishoprics, were very feebly represented. It was not
   sanctioned by the emperor Constantius, and has by no subsequent
   authority been declared ecumenical. [582] Accordingly its decrees soon
   fell into oblivion, and in the further course of the Arian controversy,
   and even throughout the Nestorian, where the bishops of Alexandria, and
   not those of Rome, were evidently at the head of the orthodox
   sentiment, they were utterly unnoticed. [583] The general councils of
   381, 451, and 680 knew nothing of such a supreme appellate tribunal,
   but unanimously enacted, that all ecclesiastical matters, without
   exception, should first be decided in the provincial councils, with the
   right of appeal--not to the bishop of Rome, but to the patriarch of the
   proper diocese. Rome alone did not forget the Sardican decrees, but
   built on this single precedent a universal right. Pope Zosimus, in the
   case of the deposed presbyter Apiarius of Sicca (a.d. 417-418), made
   the significant mistake of taking the Sardican decrees for Nicene, and
   thus giving them greater weight than they really possessed; but he was
   referred by the Africans to the genuine text of the Nicene canon. The
   later popes, however, transcended the Sardican decrees, withdrawing
   from the provincial council, according to the pseudo-Isidorian
   Decretals, the right of deposing a bishop, which had been allowed by
   Sardica, and vesting it, as a causa major, exclusively in themselves.

   Finally, in regard to the four great ecumenical councils, the first of
   Nice, the first of Constantinople, that of Ephesus, and that of
   Chalcedon: we have already presented their position on this question in
   connection with their legislation on the patriarchal system. [584] We
   have seen that they accord to the bishop of Rome a precedence of honor
   among the five officially coequal patriarchs, and thus acknowledge him
   primus inter pares, but, by that very concession, disallow his claims
   to supremacy of jurisdiction, and to monarchical authority over the
   entire church. The whole patriarchal system, in fact, was not monarchy,
   but oligarchy. Hence the protest of the Roman delegates and of Pope Leo
   against the decrees of the council of Chalcedon in 451, which coincided
   with that of Constantinople in 381. This protest was insufficient to
   annul the decree, and in the East it made no lasting impression; for
   the subsequent incidental concessions of Greek patriarchs and emperors,
   like that of the usurper Phocas in 606, and even of the sixth
   ecumenical council of Constantinople in 680, to the see of Rome, have
   no general significance, but are distinctly traceable to special
   circumstances and prejudices.

   It is, therefore, an undeniable historical fact, that the greatest
   dogmatic and legislative authorities of the ancient church bear as
   decidedly against the specific papal claims of the Roman bishopric, is
   in favor of its patriarchal rights and an honorary primacy in the
   patriarchal oligarchy. The subsequent separation of the Greek church
   from the Latin proves to this day, that she was never willing to
   sacrifice her independence to Rome, or to depart from the decrees of
   her own greatest councils.

   Here lies the difference, however, between the Greek and the Protestant
   opposition to the universal monarchy of the papacy. The Greek church
   protested against it from the basis of the oligarchical patriarchal
   hierarchy of the fifth century; in an age, therefore, and upon a
   principle of church organization, which preceded the grand agency of
   the papacy in the history of the world. The evangelical church protests
   against it on the basis of a freer conception of Christianity, seeing
   in the papacy an institution, which indeed formed the legitimate
   development of the patriarchal system, and was necessary for the
   training of the Romanic and Germanic Nations of the middle ages, but
   which has virtually fulfilled its mission and outlived itself. The
   Greek church never had a papacy; the evangelical historically implies
   one. The papacy stands between the age of the patriarchal hierarchy and
   the age of the Reformation, like the Mosaic theocracy between the
   patriarchal period and the advent of Christianity. Protestantism
   rejects at once the papal monarchy and the patriarchal oligarchy, and
   thus can justify the former as well as the latter for a certain time
   and a certain stage in the progress of the Christian world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [579] That this is the true date appears from the recently discovered
   Festival Epistles of Athanasius, published in Syriac by Cureton
   (London, 1848), in an English translation by Williams (Oxford, 1854),
   and in German by Larsow (Leipzig, 1852). Mansi puts the council in the
   year 344, but most writers, including Gieseler, Neander, Milman, and
   Greenwood, following the erroneous statement of Socrates (ii. 20) and
   Sozomen (iii. 12), place it in the year 347. Comp. on the subject
   Larsow, Die Festbriefe des Athanasius, p. 31; and Hefele,
   Conciliengesch. i. p. 513 sqq.

   [580] Can. 3, 4, and 5 (in the Latin translation, can. 3, 4, and 7), in
   Mansi, iii. 23 sq., and in Hefele, i. 539 sqq., where the Greek and the
   Latin Dionysian text is given with learned explanations. The Greek and
   Latin texts differ in some points.

   [581] So the much discussed canones are explained not only by
   Protestant historians, but also by Catholic of the Gallican school,
   like Peter de Marca, Quesnel, Du-Pin, Richer, Febronius. This
   interpretation agrees best with the whole connection; with the express
   mention of Julius (which is lacking indeed, in the Latin translation of
   Prisca and in Isidore, but stands distinctly in the Greek and Dionysian
   texts: Ioulio to episkopo Rhomes, Julio Romano episcopo); with the
   words, " Si vobis placet" (can. 3), whereby the appeal in question is
   made dependent first on the decree of this council; and finally, with
   the words, "Sancti Petri apostoli memoriam honoremus," which represent
   the Roman bishop's right of review as an honorary matter. What Hefele
   urges against these arguments (i. 548 sq.), seems to me very
   insufficient.

   [582] Baronius, Natalis Alexander, and Mansi have endeavored indeed to
   establish for the council an ecumenical character, but in opposition to
   the weightiest ancient and modern authorities of the Catholic church.
   Comp. Hefele, i. 596 sqq,

   [583] It is also to be observed, that the synodal letters, as well as
   the orthodox ecclesiastical writers of this and the succeeding age,
   which take notice of this council, like Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret,
   and Basil, make no mention of those decrees concerning Rome.

   [584] Comp. § 56.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 63. Leo the Great. a.d. 440-461.

   I. St. Leo Magnus: Opera omnia (sermones et epistolae), ed. Paschas.
   Quesnel., Par. 1675, 2 vols. 4to. (Gallican, and defending Hilary
   against Leo, hence condemned by the Roman Index); and ed. Petr. et
   Hieron. Ballerini (two very learned brothers and presbyters, who wrote
   at the request of Pope Benedict XIV.), Venet. 1753-1757, 3 vols. fol.
   (Vol. i. contains 96 Sermons and 173 Epistles, the two other volumes
   doubtful writings and learned dissertations.) This edition is reprinted
   in Migne's Patrologiae Cursus completus, vol. 54-57, Par. 1846.

   II. Acta Sanctorum: sub Apr. 11 (Apr. tom. ii. p. 14-30, brief and
   unsatisfactory). Tillemont: Mem. t. xv. p. 414-832 (very full). Butler:
   Lives of the Saints, sub Apr. 11. W. A. Arendt (R.C.): Leo der Grosse
   u. seine Zeit, Mainz, 1835 (apologetic and panegyric). Edw. Perthel: P.
   Leo's I. Leben u. Lehren, Jena, 1843 (Protestant). Fr. Boehringer: Die
   Kirche Christi u. ihre Zeugen, Zürich, 1846, vol. i. div. 4, p.
   170-309. Ph. Jaffé: Regesta Pontif. Rom., Berol. 1851, p. 34 sqq. Comp.
   also Greenwood: Cathedra Petri, Lond. 1859, vol. i. bk. ii. chap.
   iv.-vi. (The Leonine Period); and H. H. Milman: Hist. of Latin
   Christianity, Lond. and New York, 1860, vol. i. bk. ii. ch. iv.

   In most of the earlier bishops of Rome the person is eclipsed by the
   office. The spirit of the age and public opinion rule the bishops, not
   the bishops them. In the preceding period, Victor in the controversy on
   Easter, Callistus in that on the restoration of the lapsed, and Stephen
   in that on heretical baptism, were the first to come out with
   hierarchical arrogance; but they were somewhat premature, and found
   vigorous resistance in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Cyprian, though on all
   three questions the Roman view at last carried the day.

   In the period before us, Damasus, who subjected Illyria to the Roman
   jurisdiction, and established the authority of the Vulgate, and
   Siricius, who issued the first genuine decretal letter, trod in the
   steps of those predecessors. Innocent I. (402-417) took a step beyond,
   and in the Pelagian controversy ventured the bold assertion, that in
   the whole Christian world nothing should be decided without the
   cognizance of the Roman see, and that, especially in matters of faith,
   all bishops must turn to St. Peter. [585]

   But the first pope, in the proper sense of the word, is Leo I., who
   justly bears the title of "the Great" in the history of the Latin
   hierarchy. In him the idea of the Papacy, as it were, became flesh and
   blood. He conceived it in great energy and clearness, and carried it
   out with the Roman spirit of dominion, so far as the circumstances of
   the time at all allowed. He marks the same relative epoch in the
   development of the papacy, as Cyprian in the history of the episcopate.
   He had even a higher idea of the prerogatives of the see of Rome than
   Gregory the Great, who, though he reigned a hundred and fifty years
   later, represents rather the patriarchal idea than the papal. Leo was
   at the same time the first important theologian in the chair of Rome,
   surpassing in acuteness and depth of thought all his predecessors, and
   all his successors down to Gregory I. Benedict XIV. placed him (a.d.
   1744) in the small class of doctores ecclesiae, or authoritative
   teachers of the catholic faith. He battled with the Manichaean, the
   Priscillianist, the Pelagian, and other heresies, and won an immortal
   name as the finisher of the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ.

   The time and place of the birth and earlier life of Leo are unknown.
   His letters, which are the chief source of information, commence not
   before the year 442. Probably a Roman [586] --if not one by birth, he
   was certainly a Roman in the proud dignity of his spirit and bearing,
   the high order of his legislative and administrative talent, and the
   strength and energy of his will--he distinguished himself first under
   Coelestine (423-432) and Sixtus III. (432-440) as archdeacon and legate
   of the Roman church. After the death of the latter, and while himself
   absent in Gaul, he was elected pope by the united voice of clergy,
   senate, and people, and continued in that office one-and-twenty years
   (440-461). His feelings at the assumption of this high office, he
   himself thus describes in one of his sermons: "Lord, I have beard your
   voice calling me, and I was afraid: I considered the work which was
   enjoined on me, and I trembled. For what proportion is there between
   the burden assigned to me and my weakness, this elevation and my
   nothingness? What is more to be feared than exaltation without merit,
   the exercise of the most holy functions being intrusted to one who is
   buried in sin? Oh, you have laid upon me this heavy burden, bear it
   with me, I beseech you be you my guide and my support."

   During the time of his pontificate he was almost the only great man in
   the Roman empire, developed extraordinary activity, and took a leading
   part in all the affairs of the church. His private life is entirely
   unknown, and we have no reason to question the purity of his motives or
   of his morals. His official zeal, and all his time and strength, were
   devoted to the interests of Christianity. But with him the interests of
   Christianity were identical with the universal dominion of the Roman
   church.

   He was animated with the unwavering conviction that the Lord himself
   had committed to him, as the successor of Peter, the care of the whole
   church. [587] He anticipated all the dogmatical arguments by which the
   power of the papacy was subsequently established. He refers the petra,
   on which the church is built, to Peter and his confession. Though
   Christ himself--to sum up his views on the subject--is in the highest
   sense the rock and foundation, besides which no other can be laid, yet,
   by transfer of his authority, the Lord made Peter the rock in virtue of
   his great confession, and built on him the indestructible temple of his
   church. In Peter the fundamental relation of Christ to his church
   comes, as it were, to concrete form and reality in history. To him
   specially and individually the Lord intrusted the keys of the kingdom
   of heaven; to the other apostles only in their general and corporate
   capacity. For the faith of Peter the Lord specially prayed in the hour
   of his passion, as if the standing of the other apostles would be the
   firmer, if the mind of their leader remained unconquered. On Peter
   rests the steadfastness of the whole apostolic college in the faith. To
   him the Lord, after his resurrection, committed the care of his sheep
   and lambs. Peter is therefore the pastor and prince of the whole
   church, through whom Christ exercises his universal dominion on earth.
   This primacy, however, is not limited to the apostolic age, but, like
   the faith of Peter, and like the church herself, it perpetuates itself;
   and it perpetuates itself through the bishops of Rome, who are related
   to Peter as Peter was related to Christ. As Christ in Peter, so Peter
   in his successors lives and speaks and perpetually executes the
   commission: "Feed my sheep."  It was by special direction of divine
   providence, that Peter labored and died in Rome, and sleeps with
   thousands of blessed martyrs in holy ground. The centre of worldly
   empire alone can be the centre of the kingdom of God. Yet the political
   position of Rome would be of no importance without the religious
   considerations. By Peter was Rome, which had been the centre of all
   error and superstition, transformed into the metropolis of the
   Christian world, and invested with a spiritual dominion far wider than
   her former earthly empire. Hence the bishopric of Constantinople, not
   being a sedes apostolica, but resting its dignity on a political basis
   alone, can never rival the Roman, whose primacy is rooted both in
   divine and human right. Antioch also, where Peter only transiently
   resided, and Alexandria, where he planted the church through his
   disciple Mark, stand only in a secondary relation to Rome, where his
   bones repose, and where that was completed, which in the East was only
   laid out. The Roman bishop is, therefore, the primus omnium
   episcoporum, and on him devolves the plenitudo potestatis, the
   solicitudo omnium pastorum, and communis cura universalis ecclesiae.
   [588]

   Leo thus made out of a primacy of grace and of personal fitness a
   primacy of right and of succession. Of his person, indeed, he speaks in
   his sermons with great humility, but only thereby the more to exalt his
   official character. He tells the Romans, that the true celebration of
   the anniversary of his accession is, to recognize, honor, and obey, in
   his lowly person, Peter himself, who still cares for shepherd and
   flock, and whose dignity is not lacking even to his unworthy heir.
   [589] Here, therefore, we already have that characteristic combination
   of humility and arrogance, which has stereotyped itself in the
   expressions: "Servant of the servants of God," "vicar of Christ," and
   even "God upon earth."  In this double consciousness of his personal
   unworthiness and his official exaltation, Leo annually celebrated the
   day of his elevation to the chair of Peter. While Peter himself passes
   over his prerogative in silence, and expressly warns against
   hierarchical assumption, [590] Leo cannot speak frequently and
   emphatically enough of his authority. While Peter in Antioch meekly
   submits to the rebuke of the junior apostle Paul, [591] Leo pronounces
   resistance to his authority to be impious pride and the sure way to
   hell. [592] Obedience to the pope is thus necessary to salvation.
   Whosoever, says he, is not with the apostolic see, that is, with the
   head of the body, whence all gifts of grace descend throughout the
   body, is not in the body of the church, and has no part in her grace.
   This is the fearful but legitimate logic of the papal principle, which
   confines the kingdom of God to the narrow lines of a particular
   organization, and makes the universal spiritual reign of Christ
   dependent on a temporal form and a human organ. But in its very first
   application this papal ban proved itself a brutum fulmen, when in spite
   of it the Gallican archbishop Hilary, against whom it was directed,
   died universally esteemed and loved, and then was canonized. This very
   impracticability of that principle, which would exclude all Greek and
   Protestant Christians from the kingdom of heaven, is a refutation of
   the principle itself.

   In carrying his idea of the papacy into effect, Leo displayed the
   cunning tact, the diplomatic address, and the iron consistency which
   characterize the greatest popes of the middle age. The circumstances in
   general were in his favor: the East rent by dogmatic controversies;
   Africa devastated by the barbarians; the West weak in a weak emperor;
   nowhere a powerful and pure bishop or divine, like Athanasius,
   Augustine, or Jerome, in the former generation; the overthrow of the
   Western empire at hand; a new age breaking, with new peoples, for whose
   childhood the papacy was just the needful school; the most numerous and
   last important general council convened; and the system of ecumenical
   orthodoxy ready to be closed with the decision concerning the relation
   of the two natures in Christ.

   Leo first took advantage of the distractions of the North African
   church under the Arian Vandals, and wrote to its bishops in the tone of
   an acknowledged over-shepherd. Under the stress of the times, and in
   the absence of a towering, character like Cyprian and Augustine, the
   Africans submitted to his authority (443). He banished the remnants of
   the Manichaeans and Pelagians from Italy, and threatened the bishops
   with his anger, if they should not purge their churches of the heresy.
   In East Illyrian which was important to Rome as the ecclesiastical
   outpost toward Constantinople, he succeeded in regaining and
   establishing the supremacy, which had been acquired by Damasus, but had
   afterward slipped away. Anastasius of Thessalonica applied to him to be
   confirmed in his office. Leo granted the prayer in 444, extending the
   jurisdiction of Anastasius over all the Illyrian bishops, but reserving
   to them a right of appeal in important cases, which ought to be decided
   by the pope according to divine revelation. And a case to his purpose
   soon presented itself, in which Leo brought his vicar to feel that he
   was called indeed to a participation of his care, but not to a
   plentitude of power (plenitudo potestatis). In the affairs of the
   Spanish church also Leo had an opportunity to make his influence felt,
   when Turibius, bishop of Astorga, besought his intervention against the
   Priscillianists. He refuted these heretics point by point, and on the
   basis of his exposition the Spaniards drew up an orthodox regula fidei
   with eighteen anathemas against the Priscillianist error.

   But in Gaul he met, as we have already, seen, with a strenuous
   antagonist in Hilary of Arles, and, though he called the secular power
   to his aid, and procured from the emperor Valentinian an edict entirely
   favorable to his claims, he attained but a partial victory. [593] Still
   less successful was his effort to establish his primacy in the East,
   and to prevent his rival at Constantinople from being elevated, by the
   famous twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, to official equality with
   himself. [594] His earnest protest against that decree produced no
   lasting effect. But otherwise he had the most powerful influence in the
   second stage of the Christological controversy. He neutralized the
   tyranny of Dioscurus of Alexandria and the results of the shameful
   robber-council of Ephesus (449), furnished the chief occasion of the
   fourth ecumenical council, presided over it by his legates (which the
   Roman bishop had done at neither of the three councils before), and
   gave the turn to the final solution of its doctrinal problem by that
   celebrated letter to Flavian of Constantinople, the main points of
   which were incorporated in the new symbol. Yet he owed this influence
   by no means to his office alone, but most of all to his deep insight of
   the question, and to the masterly tact with which he held the Catholic
   orthodox mean between the Alexandrian and Antiochian, Eutychian and
   Nestorian extremes. The particulars of his connection with this
   important dogma belong, however, to the history of doctrine.

   Besides thus shaping the polity and doctrine of the church, Leo did
   immortal service to the city of Rome, in twice rescuing it from
   destruction. [595] When Attila, king of the Huns, the "scourge of God,"
   after destroying Aquileia, was seriously threatening the capital of the
   world (A. D. 452), Leo, with only two companions, crozier in hand,
   trusting in the help of God, ventured into the hostile camp, and by his
   venerable form, his remonstrances, and his gifts, changed the wild
   heathen's purpose. The later legend, which Raphael's pencil has
   employed, adorned the fact with a visible appearance of Peter and Paul,
   accompanying the bishop, and, with drawn sword, threatening Attila with
   destruction unless he should desist. [596] A similar case occurred
   several years after (455), when the Vandal king Genseric, invited out
   of revenge by the empress Eudoxia, pushed his ravages to Rome. Leo
   obtained from him the promise that at least he would spare the city the
   infliction of murder and fire; but the barbarians subjected it to a
   fourteen days' pillage, the enormous spoils of which they transported
   to Carthage; and afterward the pope did everything to alleviate the
   consequent destitution and suffering, and to restore the churches.
   [597]

   Leo died in 461, and was buried in the church of St. Peter. The day and
   circumstances of his death are unknown. [598]

   The literary works of Leo consist of ninety-six sermons and one hundred
   and seventy-three epistles, including epistles of others to him. They
   are earnest, forcible, full of thought, churchly, abounding in bold
   antitheses and allegorical freaks of exegesis, and sometimes heavy,
   turgid, and obscure in style. His collection of sermons is the first we
   have from a Roman bishops In his inaugural discourse he declared
   preaching to be his sacred duty. The sermons are short and simple, and
   were delivered mostly on high festivals and on the anniversaries of his
   own elevation. [599] Other works ascribed to him, such as that on the
   calling of all nations, [600] which takes a middle ground on the
   doctrine of predestination, with the view to reconcile the
   Semipelagians and Augustinians, are of doubtful genuineness.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [585] Ep. ad Conc. Cartha. and Ep. ad Concil. Milev., both in 416. In
   reference to this decision, which went against Pelagius,
   Augustineuttered the word so often quoted by Roman divines: "Causa
   finita est; utinam aliquando finiatur error." But when Zosimus, the
   successor of Innocent, took the part of Pelagius, Augustineand the
   African church boldly opposed him, and made use of the Cyprianic right
   of protest."Circumstances alter cases."

   [586] As Quesnel and most of his successors infer from Prosper's
   Chronicle, and a passage in Leo's Ep. 31, c. 4, where he assigns among
   the reasons for not attending the council at Ephesus in 449, that he
   could not "deserere patriam et sedem apostolicam." Patria, however, may
   as well mean Italy, or at least the diocese of Rome, including the ten
   suburbican provinces. In the Liber pontificalis he is called "natione
   Tuscus," but in two manuscript copies, "natione Romanus." Canisius, in
   the Acta Sanctorum, adopts the former view. Butler reconciles the
   difficulty by supposing that he was descended of a noble Tuscan family,
   but born at Rome.

   [587] Ep. v. ad Episcopos Metrop. per Illyricum constitutos, c. 2 (ed.
   Ball. i. 617, in Migne's Patristic Libr. vol. liv. p. 515): "Quia per
   omnes ecclesias cura nostra distenditur, exigente hoc a nobis Domino,
   qui apostolicae dignitatis beatissimo apostolo Petro primatum fidei
   suae remuneratione commisit, universalem ecclesiam in fundamenti ipsius
   [Quesnel proposes istius for ipsius] soliditate constituens,
   necessitatem sollicitudinis quam habemus, cum his qui nobis collegii
   caritate juncti sunt, sociamus."

   [588] These views Leo repeatedly expresses in his sermons on the
   festival of St. Peter and on the anniversary of his own elevation, as
   well as in his official letters to the African, Illyrian, and South
   Gallic bishops, to Dioscurus of Alexandria, to the patriarch Anatolius
   of Constantinople, to the emperor Marcian and the empress Pulcheria.
   Particular proof passages are unnecessary. Comp. especially Ep. x.,
   xi., xii., xiv., civ.-cvi. (ed. Baller.), and Perthel, l.c. p. 226-241,
   where the chief passages are given in full.

   [589]  "Cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit," Sermo
   iii. in Natal, ordin. c. 4 (vol. i. p. 13, ed. Ball.)."Etsi necessarium
   est trepidare de merito, religiosum est tamen gaudere de dono: quoniam
   qui mihi oneris est auctor, ipse est administrationis adjutor." Serm.
   ii. c. 1.

   [590] Pet. v. 3.

   [591] Gal. ii. 11.

   [592] Ep. x. c. 2 (ed. Ball. i. p. 634; ed. Migne, vol. 54, p. 630), to
   the Gallican bishops in the matter of Hilary: "Cui (sc. Petro) quisquis
   principatum aestimat denegandum, illius quidem nullo modo potest
   minuere dignitatem; sed inflatus spiritu superbiae suae semetipsum in
   inferna demergit." Comp. Ep. clxiv. 3; clvii. 3.

   [593] Comp. above, § 59.

   [594] See the particulars in § 36, above, near the close

   [595] Comp. Pertbel, l.c. p. 90 sqq., and p. 104 sqq.

   [596] Leo himself says nothing of his mission to Attila. Prosper, in
   Chron. ad ann. 452, mentions it briefly, and Canisius, in the Vita
   Leonis (in the Acta Sanctorum, for the month of April, tom. ii. p. 18),
   with later exaggerations.

   [597] Comp. Leo's 84th Sermon, which was preached soon after the
   departure of the Vandals, and Prosper, Chron ad ann. 455

   [598] The Roman calendar places his name on the 11th of April. But
   different writers fix his death on June 28, Oct. 30 (Quesnel), Nov. 4
   (Pagi), Nov. 10 (Butler). Butler quotes the concession of Bower, the
   apostate Jesuit, who, in his Lives of the Popes, says of Leo, that "he
   was without doubt a man of extraordinary parts, far superior to all who
   had governed that church before him, and scarce equalled by any since."

   [599] Sermones de natali. Canisius (in Acta Sanct., l.c. p. 17) calls
   Leo Christianum Demosthenem.

   [600] De vocatione omnium gentium--a work praised highly even by
   Erasmus, Luther, Bullinger, and Grotius. Quesnel has only proved the
   possibility of Leo's being the author. Comp. Perthel, l.c. p. 127 sqq.
   The Sacramentarium Leonis, or a collection of liturgical prayers for
   all the festival days of the year, contains some of his prayers, but
   also many which are of a later date.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 64. The Papacy from Leo I to Gregory I. a.d. 461-590.

   The first Leo and the first Gregory are the two greatest bishops of
   Rome in the first six centuries. Between them no important personage
   appears on the chair of Peter; and in the course of that intervening
   century the idea and the power of the papacy make no material advance.
   In truth, they went farther in Leo's mind than they did in Gregory's.
   Leo thought and acted as an absolute monarch; Gregory as first among
   the patriarchs; but both under the full conviction that they were the
   successors of Peter.

   After the death of Leo, the archdeacon Hilary, who had represented him
   at the council of Ephesus, was elected to his place, and ruled
   (461-468) upon his principles, asserting the strict orthodoxy in the
   East and the authority of the primacy in Gaul.

   His successor, Simplicius (468-483), saw the final dissolution of the
   empire under Romulus Augustulus (476), but, as he takes not the
   slightest notice of it in his epistles, he seems to have ascribed to it
   but little importance. The papal power had been rather favored than
   hindered in its growth by the imbecility of the latest emperors. Now,
   to a certain extent, it stepped into the imperial vacancy, and the
   successor of Peter became, in the mind of the Western nations, sole
   heir of the old Roman imperial succession.

   On the fall of the empire the pope became the political subject of the
   barbarian and heretical (for they were Arian) kings; but these princes,
   as most of the heathen emperors had done, allowed him, either from
   policy, or from ignorance or indifference, entire freedom in
   ecclesiastical affairs. In Italy the Catholics had by far the
   ascendency in numbers and in culture. And the Arianism of the new
   rulers was rather an outward profession than an inward conviction.
   Odoacer, who first assumed the kingdom of Italy (476-493), was tolerant
   toward the orthodox faith, yet attempted to control the papal election
   in 483 in the interest of the state, and prohibited, under penalty of
   the anathema, the alienation of church property by any bishop. Twenty
   years later a Roman council protested against this intervention of a
   layman, and pronounced the above prohibition null and void, but itself
   passed a similar decree against the alienation of church estates. [601]

   Pope Felix II., or, according to another reckoning,III. (483-492),
   continued the war of his predecessor against the Monophysitism of the
   East, rejected the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, as an unwarrantable
   intrusion of a layman in matters of faith, and ventured even the
   excommunication of the bishop Acacius of Constantinople. Acacius
   replied with a counter anathema, with the support of the other Eastern
   patriarchs; and the schism between the two churches lasted over thirty
   years, to the pontificate of Hormisdas.

   Gelasius I. (492-496) clearly announced the principle, that the
   priestly power is above the kingly and the imperial, and that from the
   decisions of the chair of Peter there is no appeal. Yet from this pope
   we have, on the other hand, a remarkable testimony against what he
   pronounces the "sacrilege" of withholding the cup from the laity, the
   communio sub una specie.

   Anastasius II. (496-498) indulged in a milder tone toward
   Constantinople, and incurred the suspicion of consent to its heresy.
   [602]

   His sudden death was followed by a contested papal election, which led
   to bloody encounters. The Ostrogothic king Theodoric (the Dietrich of
   Bern in the Niebelungenlied), the conqueror and master of Italy
   (493-526), and, like Odoacer, an Arian, was called into consultation in
   this contest, and gave his voice for Symmachus against Laurentius,
   because Symmachus had received the majority of votes, and had been
   consecrated first. But the party of Laurentius, not satisfied with
   this, raised against Symmachus the reproach of gross iniquities, even
   of adultery and of squandering the church estates. The bloody scenes
   were renewed, priests were murdered, cloisters were burned, and nuns
   were insulted. Theodoric, being again called upon by the senate for a
   decision, summoned a council at Rome, to which Symmachus gave his
   consent; and a synod, convoked by a heretical king, must decide upon
   the pope! In the course of the controversy several councils were held
   in rapid succession, the chronology of which is disputed. [603] The
   most important was the synodus palmaris, [604] the fourth council under
   Symmachus, held in October, 501. It acquitted this pope without
   investigation, on the presumption that it did not behove the council to
   pass judgment respecting the successor of St. Peter. In his vindication
   of this council--for the opposition was not satisfied with it--the
   deacon Ennodius, afterward bishop of Pavia ( 521), gave the first clear
   expression to the absolutism upon which Leo had already acted: that the
   Roman bishop is above every human tribunal, and is responsible only to
   God himself. [605] Nevertheless, even in the middle age, popes were
   deposed and set up by emperors and general councils. This is one of the
   points of dispute between the absolute papal system and the
   constitutional episcopal system in the Roman church, which was left
   unsettled even by the council of Trent.

   Under Hormisdas (514-523) the Monophysite party in the Greek church was
   destroyed by the energetic zeal of the orthodox emperor Justin, and in
   519 the union of that church with Rome was restored, after a schism of
   five-and-thirty years.

   Theodoric offered no hinderance to the transactions and embassies, and
   allowed his most distinguished subject to assert his ecclesiastical
   supremacy over Constantinople. This semi-barbarous and heretical prince
   was tolerant in general, and very liberal toward the Catholic church;
   even rising to the principle, which has waited till the modern age for
   its recognition, that the power of the prince should be restricted to
   civil government, and should permit no trespass on the conscience of
   its subjects." No one," says he, "shall be forced to believe against
   his will."  Yet, toward the close of his reign, on mere political
   suspicion, he ordered the execution of the celebrated philosopher
   Boethius, with whom the old Roman literature far more worthily closes,
   than the Roman empire with Augustulus; and on the same ground he caused
   the death of the senator Symmachus and the incarceration of Pope John
   I. (523-526).

   Almost the last act of his reign was the nomination of the worthy Felix
   III. (IV.) to the papal chair, after a protracted struggle of
   contending parties. With the appointment he issued the order that
   hereafter, as heretofore, the pope should be elected by clergy and
   people, but should be confirmed by the temporal prince before assuming
   his office; and with this understanding the clergy and the city gave
   their consent to the nomination.

   Yet, in spite of this arrangement, in the election of Boniface II.
   (530-532) and John II. (532-535) the same disgraceful quarrelling and
   briberies occurred;--a sort of chronic disease in the history of the
   papacy.

   Soon after the death of Theodoric (526) the Gothic empire fell to
   pieces through internal distraction and imperial weakness. Italy was
   conquered by Belisarius (535), and, with Africa, again incorporated
   with the East Roman empire, which renewed under Justinian its ancient
   splendor, and enjoyed a transient after-summer. And yet this powerful,
   orthodox emperor was a slave to the intriguing, heretical Theodora,
   whom he had raised from the theatre to the throne; and Belisarius
   likewise, his victorious general, was completely under the power of his
   wife Antonina.

   With the conquest of Italy the popes fell into a perilous and unworthy
   dependence on the emperor at Constantinople, who reverenced, indeed,
   the Roman chair, but not less that of Constantinople, and in reality
   sought to use both as tools of his own state-church despotism. Agapetus
   (535-536) offered fearless resistance to the arbitrary course of
   Justinian, and successfully protested against the elevation of the
   Eutychian Anthimus to the patriarchal see of Constantinople. But, by
   the intrigues of the Monophysite empress, his successor, Pope Silverius
   (a son of Hormisdas, 536-538), was deposed on the charge of treasonable
   correspondence with the Goths, and banished to the island of
   Pandataria, whither the worst heathen emperors used to send the victims
   of their tyranny, and where in 540 he died--whether a natural or a
   violent death, we do not know.

   Vigilius, a pliant creature of Theodora, ascended the papal chair under
   the military protection of Belisarius (538-554). The empress had
   promised him this office and a sum of money, on condition that he
   nullify the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and pronounce Anthimus
   and his friends orthodox. The ambitious and doubled-tongued prelate
   accepted the condition, and accomplished the deposition, and perhaps
   the death, of Silverius. In his pontificate occurred the violent
   controversy of the three chapters and the second general council of
   Constantinople (553). His administration was an unprincipled
   vacillation between the dignity and duties of his office and
   subservience to an alien theological and political influence; between
   repeated condemnation of the three chapters in behalf of a
   Eutychianizing spirit, and repeated retraction of that condemnation. In
   Constantinople, where he resided several years at the instance of the
   emperor, he suffered much personal persecution, but without the spirit
   of martyrdom, and without its glory. For example, at least according to
   Western accounts, he was violently torn from the altar, upon which he
   was holding with both hands so firmly that the posts of the canopy fell
   in above him; he was dragged through the streets with a rope around his
   neck, and cast into a common prison; because he would not submit to the
   will of Justinian and his council. Yet he yielded at last, through fear
   of deposition. He obtained permission to return to Rome, but died in
   Sicily, of the stone, on his way thither (554).

   Pelagius I. (554-560), by order of Justinian, whose favor he had
   previously gained as papal legate at Constantinople, was made successor
   of Vigilius, but found only two bishops ready to consecrate him. His
   close connection with the East, and his approval of the fifth
   ecumenical council, which was regarded as a partial concession to the
   Eutychian Christology, and, so far, an impeachment of the authority of
   the council of Chalcedon, alienated many Western bishops, even in
   Italy, and induced a temporary suspension of their connection with
   Rome. He issued a letter to the whole Christian world, in which he
   declared his entire agreement with the first four general councils, and
   then vindicated the fifth as in no way departing from the Chalcedonian
   dogma. But only by the military aid of Narses could he secure
   subjection; and the most refractory bishops, those of Aquileia and
   Milan, he sent as prisoners to Constantinople.

   In these two Justinian-made popes we see how much the power of the
   Roman hierarchy was indebted to its remoteness from the Byzantine
   despotism, and how much it was injured by contact with it.

   With the descent of the Arian Longobards into Italy, after 668, the
   popes again became more independent of the Byzantine court. They
   continued under tribute indeed to the ex-archs in Ravenna, as the
   representatives of the Greek emperors (from 554), and were obliged to
   have their election confirmed and their inauguration superintended by
   them. But the feeble hold of these officials in Italy, and the pressure
   of the Arian barbarians upon them, greatly favored the popes, who,
   being the richest proprietors, enjoyed also great political
   consideration in Italy, and applied their influence to the maintenance
   of law and order amidst the reigning confusion.

   In other respects the administrations of John III. (560-573), Benedict
   I. (574-578), and Pelagius II. (578-590), are among the darkest and the
   most sterile in the annals of the papacy.

   But with Gregory I. (590-604) a new period begins. Next to Leo I. he
   was the greatest of the ancient bishops of Rome, and he marks the
   transition of the patriarchal system into the strict papacy of the
   middle ages. For several reasons we prefer to place him at the head of
   the succeeding period. He came, it is true, with more modest claims
   than Leo, who surpassed him in boldness, energy, and consistency. He
   even solemnly protested, as his predecessor Pelagius II. had done,
   against the title of universal bishop, which the Constantinopolitan
   patriarch, John Jejunator, adopted at a council in 587; [606] he
   declared it an antichristian assumption, in terms which quite remind us
   of the patriarchal equality, and seem to form a step in recession from
   the ground of Leo. But when we take his operations in general into
   view, and remember the rigid consistency of the papacy, which never
   forgets, we are almost justified in thinking, that this protest was
   directed not so much against the title itself, as against the bearer of
   it, and proceeded more from jealousy of a rival at Constantinople, than
   from sincere humility. [607] From the same motive the Roman bishops
   avoided the title of patriarch, as placing them on a level with the
   Eastern patriarchs, and preferred the title of pope, from a sense of
   the specific dignity of the chair of Peter. Gregory is said to have
   been the first to use the humble-proud title: "Servant of the servants
   of God."  His successors, notwithstanding his protest, called
   themselves "the universal bishops" of Christendom. What he had
   condemned in his oriental colleagues as antichristian arrogance, the
   later popes considered but the appropriate expression of their official
   position in the church universal.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [601] This was the fifth (al. fourth) council under, Symmachus, held in
   Nov. 502, therefore later than the synodus palmaris. Comp. Hefele, ii.
   p. 625 sq.

   [602] . Dante puts him in hell, and Baronius ascribes his sudden death
   to an evident judgment of God.

   [603] Comp. Hefele, ii. p. 615 sqq.

   [604] So named from the building in Rome, in which it was held: "A
   porticu beati Petri Apostoli, quae appellatur ad Palmaria," as
   Anastasius says. In the histories of councils it is erroneously given
   as Synodus III. Many historians, Gieseler among them, place it in the
   year 503.

   [605] Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo IV. Romana, in Mansi, viii. 274.
   This vindication was solemnly adopted by the sixth Roman council under
   Symmachus, in 503, and made equivalent to a decree of council.

   [606] Even Justinian repeatedly applied to the patriarch of
   Constantinople officially the title oikomenikos patriarches,
   universalis patriarcha.

   [607] Bellarmine disposes of this apparent testimony of one of the
   greatest and best popes against the system of popery, which has
   frequently been urged since Calvin by Protestant controversialists, by
   assuming that the term episcopus universalis is used in two very
   different senses."Respondeo," he says (in his great controversial work,
   De controversiis christianae fidei, etc., de Romano pontifice, lib. ii.
   cap. 31), "duobus modis posse intelligi nomen universalis episcopi. Uno
   modo, ut ille, qui dicitur universalis, intelligatur esse solus
   episcopus omnium urbium Christianarum, ita ut caeteri non sint
   episcopi, sed vicarii tantum illius, qui dicitur episcopus universalis,
   et hoc modo nomen hoc est vere profanum, sacrilegum et
   antichristianum.... Altero modo dici potest episcopus universalis, qui
   habet curam totius ecclesiae, sed generalem, ita ut non excludat
   particulares episcopos. Et hoc modo nomen hoc posse tribui Romano
   pontifici ex mente Gregorii probatur."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils.

   I. The principal sources are the Acts of the Councils, the best and
   most complete collections of which are those of the Jesuit Sirmond
   (Rom. 1608-1612, 4 vols. fol.); the so-called Collectio regia (Paris,
   1644, 37 vols. fol.; a copy of it in the Astor Libr., New York); but
   especially those of the Jesuit Hardouin ( 1729): Collectio maxima
   Conciliorum generalium et provincialium (Par. 1715 sqq., 12 vols.
   fol.), coming down to 1714, and very available through its five copious
   indexes (tom. i. and ii. embrace the first six centuries; a copy of it,
   from Van Ess's library, in the Union Theol. Sem. Library, at New York);
   and the Italian Joannes Dominicus Mansi (archbishop of Lucca, died
   1769): Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collection, Florence,
   1759-'98, in 31 (30) vols. fol. This is the most complete and the best
   collection down to the fifteenth century, but unfinished, and therefore
   without general indexes; tom. i. contains the Councils from the
   beginning of Christianity to a.d. 304; tom. ii.-ix. include our period
   to a.d. 590 (I quote from an excellent copy of this rare collection in
   the Union Theol. Sem. Libr., at New York, 30 t. James Darling, in his
   Cyclop. Bibliographica, p. 740-756, gives the list of the contents of
   an earlier edition of the Councils by Nic. Coleti, Venet., 1728, in 23
   vols., with a supplement of Mansi, in 6 vols. 1748-'52, which goes down
   to 1727, while the new edition of Mansi only reaches to 1509. Brunet,
   in the "Manuel Du Libraire," quotes the edition of Mansi, Florence,
   1759-1798, with the remark: "Cette collection, dont le dernier volume
   s'arrête à l'année 1509, est peu commune à Paris ou elle revenait à 600
   fr."  Strictly speaking its stops in the middle of the 15th century,
   except in a few documents which reach further.) Useful abstracts are
   the Summa Conciliorum of Barth. Caranza, in many editions; and in the
   German language, the Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen (4th and 5th
   centuries), by Fuchs, Leipz., 1780-1784, 4 vols.

   II. Chr. Wilh. Franz Walch (Luth.): Entwurf einer vollstaendigen
   Historie der Kirchenversammlungen, Leipz., 1759. Edw. H. Landon
   (Anglic.): A manual of Councils of the Holy Catholick Church,
   comprising the substance of the most remarkable and important canons,
   alphabetically arranged, 12mo. London, 1846. C. J. Hefele (R.C.):
   Conciliengeshichte, Freiburg, 1855-1863, 5 vols. (a very valuable work,
   not yet finished; vol. v. comes down to a.d. 1250). Comp. my Essay on
   Oekumenische Concilien, in Dorner's Annals of Ger. Theol. vol. viii.
   326-346.

   Above the patriarchs, even above the patriarch of Rome, stood the
   ecumenical or general councils, [608] the highest representatives, of
   the unity and authority of the old Catholic church. They referred
   originally to the Roman empire, but afterward included the adjacent
   barbarian countries, so far as those countries were represented in them
   by bishops. They rise up like lofty peaks or majestic pyramids from the
   plan of ancient church history, and mark the ultimate authoritative
   settlement of the general questions of doctrine and discipline which
   agitated Christendom in the Graeco-Roman empire.

   The synodical system in general had its rise in the apostolic council
   at Jerusalem, [609] and completed its development, under its Catholic
   form, in the course of the first five centuries. Like the episcopate,
   it presented a hierarchical gradation of orders. There was, first, the
   diocesan or district council, in which the bishop of a diocese (in the
   later sense of the word) presided over his clergy; then the provincial
   council, consisting of the metropolitan or archbishop and the bishops
   of his ecclesiastical province; next, the patriarchal council,
   embracing all the bishops of a patriarchal district (or a diocese in
   the old sense of the term); then the national council, inaccurately
   styled also general, representing either the entire Greek or the entire
   Latin church (like the later Lateran councils and the council of
   Trent); and finally, at the summit stood the ecumenical council, for
   the whole Christian world. There was besides these a peculiar and
   abnormal kind of synod, styled sunodos endemousa, frequently held by
   the bishop of Constantinople with the provincial bishops resident
   (endemountes) on the spot. [610]

   In the earlier centuries the councils assembled without fixed
   regularity, at the instance of present necessities, like the Montanist
   and the Easter controversies in the latter part of the second century.
   Firmilian of Cappadocia, in his letter to Cyprian, first mentions, that
   at his time, in the middle of the third century, the churches of Asia
   Minor held regular annual synods, consisting of bishops and presbyters.
   From that time we find an increasing number of such assemblies in
   Egypt, Syria, Greece, Northern Africa, Italy, Spain, and Gaul. The
   council of Nicaea, a.d. 325, ordained, in the fifth canon, that the
   provincial councils should meet twice a year: during the fast season
   before Easter, and in the fall. [611] In regard to the other synods no
   direction was given.

   The Ecumenical councils were not stated, but extraordinary assemblies,
   occasioned by the great theological controversies of the ancient
   church. They could not arise until after the conversion of the Roman
   emperor and the ascendancy of Christianity as the religion of the
   state. They were the highest, and the last, manifestation of the power
   of the Greek church, which in general took the lead in the first age of
   Christianity, and was the chief seat of all theological activity. Hence
   in that church, as well as in others, they are still held in the
   highest veneration, and kept alive in the popular mind by pictures in
   the churches. The Greek and Russian Christians have annually
   commemorated the seven ecumenical councils, since the year 842, on the
   first Sunday in Lent, as the festival of the triumph of orthodoxy [612]
   and they live in the hope that an eighth ecumenical council shall yet
   heal the divisions and infirmities of the Christian world. Through
   their symbols of faith those councils, especially of Nice and of
   Chalcedon, still live in the Western church, both Roman Catholic and
   Evangelical Protestant.

   Strictly speaking, none of these councils properly represented the
   entire Christian world. Apart from the fact that the laity, and even
   the lower clergy, were excluded from them, the assembled bishops
   themselves formed but a small part of the Catholic episcopate. The
   province of North Africa alone numbered many more bishops than were
   present at either the second, the third, or the fifth general council.
   [613] The councils bore a prevailingly oriental character, were
   occupied with Greek controversies, used the Greek language, sat in
   Constantinople or in its vicinity, and consisted almost wholly of Greek
   members. The Latin church was usually represented only by a couple of
   delegates of the Roman bishop; though these delegates, it is true,
   acted more or less in the name of the entire West. Even the five
   hundred and twenty, or the six hundred and thirty members of the
   council of Chalcedon, excepting the two representatives of Leo I., and
   two African fugitives accidentally present, were all from the East. The
   council of Constantinople in 381 contained not a single Latin bishop,
   and only a hundred and fifty Greek, and was raised to the ecumenical
   rank by the consent of the Latin church toward the middle of the
   following century. On the other hand, the council of Ephesus, in 449,
   was designed by emperor and pope to be an ecumenical council; but
   instead of this it has been branded in history as the synod of robbers,
   for its violent sanction of the Eutychian heresy. The council of
   Sardica, in 343, was likewise intended to be a general council, but
   immediately after its assembling assumed a sectional character, through
   the secession and counter-organization of the Eastern bishops.

   It is, therefore, not the number of bishops present, nor even the
   regularity of the summons alone, which determines the ecumenical
   character of a council, but the result, the importance and correctness
   of the decisions, and, above all, the consent of the orthodox Christian
   world. [614]

   The number of the councils thus raised by the public opinion of the
   Greek and Latin churches to the ecumenical dignity, is seven. The
   succession begins with the first council of Nicaea, in the year 325,
   which settled the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and condemned the
   Arian heresy. It closes with the second council of Nice, in 787, which
   sanctioned the use of images in the church. The first four of these
   councils command high theological regard in the orthodox Evangelical
   churches, while the last three are less important and far more rarely
   mentioned.

   The ecumenical councils have not only an ecclesiastical significance,
   but bear also a political or state-church character. The very name
   refers to the oikoumene, the orbis Romanus, the empire. Such synods
   were rendered possible only by that great transformation, which is
   marked by the accession of Constantine. That emperor caused the
   assembling of the first ecumenical council, though the idea was
   probably suggested to him by friends among the bishops; at least
   Rufinus says, he summoned the council "ex sacerdotum sententia." At all
   events the Christian Graeco-Roman emperor is indispensable to an
   ecumenical council in the ancient sense of the term; its temporal head
   and its legislative strength.

   According to the rigid hierarchical or papistic theory, as carried out
   in the middle ages, and still asserted by Roman divines, the pope
   alone, as universal head of the church, can summon, conduct, and
   confirm a universal council. But the history of the first seven, or, as
   the Roman reckoning is, eight, ecumenical councils, from 325 to 867,
   assigns this threefold power to the Byzantine emperors. This is placed
   beyond all contradiction, by the still extant edicts of the emperors,
   the acts of the councils, the accounts of all the Greek historians, and
   the contemporary Latin sources. Upon this Byzantine precedent, and upon
   the example of the kings of Israel, the Russian Czars and the
   Protestant princes of Germany, Scandinavia, and England--be it justly
   or unjustly--build their claim to a similar and still more extended
   supervision of the church in their dominions.

   In the first place, the call of the ecumenical councils emanated from
   the emperors. [615] They fixed the place and time of the assembly,
   summoned the metropolitans and more distinguished bishops of the empire
   by an edict, provided the means of transit, and paid the cost of travel
   and the other expenses out of the public treasury. In the case of the
   council of Nicaea and the first of Constantinople the call was issued
   without previous advice or consent from the bishop of Rome. [616] In
   the council of Chalcedon, in 451, the papal influence is for the first
   time decidedly prominent; but even there it appears in virtual
   subordination to the higher authority of the council, which did not
   suffer itself to be disturbed by the protest of Leo against its
   twenty-eighth canon in reference to the rank of the patriarch of
   Constantinople. Not only ecumenical, but also provincial councils were
   not rarely called together by Western princes; as the council of Arles
   in 314 by Constantine, the council of Orleans in 549 by Childebert,
   and--to anticipate an instance--the synod of Frankfort in 794 by
   Charlemagne. Another remarkable fact has been already mentioned: that
   in the beginning of the sixth century several Orthodox synods at Rome,
   for the purpose of deciding the contested election of Symmachus, were
   called by a secular prince, and he the heretical Theodoric; yet they
   were regarded as valid.

   In the second place, the emperors, directly or indirectly, took an
   active part in all but two of the ecumenical councils summoned by them,
   and held the presidency. Constantine the Great, Marcian, and his wife
   Pulcheria, Constantine Progonatus, Irene, and Basil the Macedonian,
   attended in person; but generally the emperors, like the Roman bishops
   (who were never present themselves), were represented by delegates or
   commissioners, clothed with full authority for the occasion. These
   deputies opened the sessions by reading the imperial edict (in Latin
   and Greek) and other documents. They presided in conjunction with the
   patriarchs, conducted the entire course of the transactions, preserved
   order and security, closed the council, and signed the acts either at
   the head or at the foot of the signatures of the bishops. In this
   prominent position they sometimes exercised, when they had a
   theological interest or opinion of their own, no small influence on the
   discussions and decisions, though they had no votum; as the presiding
   officers of deliberative and legislative bodies generally have no vote,
   except when the decision of a question depends upon their voice.

   To this presidency of the emperor or of his commissioners the acts of
   the councils and the Greek historians often refer. Even Pope Stephen V.
   (a.d. 817) writes, that Constantine the Great presided in the council
   of Nice. According to Eusebius, he introduced the principal matters of
   business with a solemn discourse, constantly attended the sessions, and
   took the place of honor in the assembly. His presence among the bishops
   at the banquet, which he gave them at the close of the council, seemed
   to that panegyrical historian a type of Christ among his saints! [617]
   This prominence of Constantine in the most celebrated and the most
   important of all the councils is the more remarkable, since at that
   time he had not yet even been baptized. When Marcian and Pulcheria
   appeared with their court at the council of Chalcedon, to confirm its
   decrees, they were greeted by the assembled bishops in the bombastic
   style of the East, as defenders of the faith, as pillars of orthodoxy,
   as enemies and persecutors of heretics; the emperor as a second
   Constantine, a new Paul, a new David; the empress as a second Helena;
   with other high-sounding predicates. [618] The second and fifth general
   councils were the only ones at which the emperor was not represented,
   and in them the presidency was in the hands of the patriarchs of
   Constantinople.

   But together with the imperial commissioners, or in their absence, the
   different patriarchs or their representatives, especially the legates
   of the Roman bishop, the most powerful of the patriarchs, took part in
   the presiding office. This was the case at the third and fourth, and
   the sixth, seventh, and eighth universal councils.

   For the emperor's connection with the council had reference rather to
   the conduct of business and to the external affairs of the synod, than
   to its theological and religious discussions. This distinction appears
   in the well-known dictum of Constantine respecting a double episcopate,
   which we have already noticed. And at the Nicene council the emperor
   acted accordingly. He paid the bishops greater reverence than his
   heathen predecessors had shown the Roman senators. He wished to be a
   servant, not a judge, of the successors of the apostles, who are
   constituted priests and gods on earth. After his opening address, he
   "resigned the word" to the (clerical) officers of the council, [619] by
   whom probably Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch,
   and Hosius of Cordova--the latter as special friend of the emperor, and
   as representative of the Western churches and perhaps of the bishop of
   Rome--are to be understood. The same distinction between a secular and
   spiritual presidency meets us in Theodosius II., who sent the comes
   Candidian as his deputy to the third general council, with full power
   over the entire business proceedings, but none over theological matters
   themselves; "for"--wrote he to the council-, "it is not proper that one
   who does not belong to the catalogue of most holy bishops, should
   meddle in ecclesiastical discussions." Yet Cyril of Alexandria presided
   at this council, and conducted the business, at first alone, afterward
   in conjunction with the papal legates; while Candidian supported the
   Nestorian opposition, which held a council of its own under the
   patriarch John of Antioch.

   Finally, from the emperors proceeded the ratification of the councils.
   Partly by their signatures, partly by special edicts, they gave the
   decrees of the council legal validity; they raised them to laws of the
   realm; they took pains to have them observed, and punished the
   disobedient with deposition and banishment. This was done by
   Constantine the Great for the decrees of Nice; by Theodosius the Great
   for those of Constantinople; by Marcian for those of Chalcedon. The
   second ecumenical council expressly prayed the emperor for such
   sanction, since he was present neither in person nor by commission. The
   papal confirmation, on the contrary, was not considered necessary,
   until after the fourth general council, in 451. [620] And
   notwithstanding this, Justinian broke through the decrees of the fifth
   council, of 553, without the consent, and in fact despite the intimated
   refusal of Pope Vigilius. In the middle ages, however, the case was
   reversed. The influence of the pope on the councils increased, and that
   of the emperor declined; or rather, the German emperor never claimed so
   preëminent a position in the church as the Byzantine. Yet the relation
   of the pope to a general council, the question which of the two is
   above the other, is still a point of controversy between the curialist
   or ultramontane and the episcopal or Gallican schools.

   Apart from this predominance of the emperor and his commissioners, the
   character of the ecumenical councils was thoroughly hierarchical. In
   the apostolic council at Jerusalem, the elders and the brethren took
   part with the apostles, and the decision went forth in the name of the
   whole congregation. [621] But this republican or democratic element, so
   to call it, had long since given way before the spirit of aristocracy.
   The bishops alone, as the successors and heirs of the apostles, the
   ecclesia docens, were members of the councils. Hence, in the fifth
   canon of Nice, even a provincial synod is termed "the general assembly
   of the bishops of the province." The presbyters and deacons took part,
   indeed, in the deliberations, and Athanasius, though at the time only a
   deacon, exerted probably more influence on the council of Nice by his
   zeal and his gifts, than most of the bishops; but they had no votum
   decisivum, except when, like the Roman legates, they represented their
   bishops. The laity were entirely excluded.

   Yet it must be remembered, that the bishops of that day were elected by
   the popular voice. So far as that went, they really represented the
   Christian people, and were not seldom called to account by the people
   for their acts, though they voted in their own name as successors of
   the apostles. Eusebius felt bound to justify, his vote at Nice before
   his diocese in Caesarea, and the Egyptian bishops at Chalcedon feared
   an uproar in their congregations.

   Furthermore, the councils, in an age of absolute despotism, sanctioned
   the principle of common public deliberation, as the best means of
   arriving at truth and settling controversy. They revived the spectacle
   of the Roman senate in ecclesiastical form, and were the forerunners of
   representative government and parliamentary legislation.

   In matters of discipline the majority decided; but in matters of faith
   unanimity was required, though, if necessary, it was forced by the
   excision of the dissentient minority. In the midst of the assembly an
   open copy of the Gospels lay upon a desk or table, as, a symbol of the
   presence of Christ, whose infallible word is the rule of all doctrine.
   Subsequently the ecclesiastical canons and the relics of the saints
   were laid in similar state. The bishops--at least according to later
   usage--sat in a circle, in the order of the dates of their ordination
   or the rank of their sees; behind them, the priests; before or beside
   them, the deacons. The meetings were opened and closed with religious
   solemnities in liturgical style. In the ancient councils the various
   subjects were discussed in open synod, and the Acts of the councils
   contain long discourses and debates. But in the council of Trent the
   subjects of action were wrought up in separate committees, and only
   laid before the whole synod for ratification. The vote was always taken
   by heads, till the council of Constance, when it was taken by nations,
   to avoid the preponderance of the Italian prelates.

   The jurisdiction of the ecumenical councils covered the entire
   legislation of the church, all matters of Christian faith and practice
   (fidei et morum), and all matters of organization arid worship. The
   doctrinal decrees were called dogmata or symbola; the disciplinary,
   canones. At the same time, the councils exercised, when occasion
   required, the highest judicial authority, in excommunicating bishops
   and patriarchs.

   The authority of these councils in the decision of all points of
   controversy was supreme and final.

   Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the
   promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church,
   his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the
   Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as
   representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic
   council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto
   et nobis. [622] Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the
   churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command;
   [623] a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word
   divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be
   forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the
   divinity of Christ: "What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides
   forever." [624] The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the
   Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken
   through them. [625] The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of
   deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: "The Lord Jesus Christ,
   whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council."
   [626] Pope Leo speaks of an "irretractabilis consensus" of the council
   of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory
   the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and
   destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius,
   Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels.
   [627] In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four
   councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons
   by the side of laws of the realm. [628] The remaining three general
   councils have neither a theological importance, nor therefore an
   authority, equal to that of those first four, which laid the
   foundations of ecumenical orthodoxy. Otherwise Gregory would have
   mentioned also the fifth council, of 553, in the passage to which we
   have just referred. And even among the first four there is a difference
   of rank; the councils of Nice and Chalcedon standing highest in the
   character of their results.

   Not so with the rules of discipline prescribed in the canones. These
   were never considered universally binding, like the symbols of faith;
   since matters of organization and usage, pertaining rather to the
   external form of the church, are more or less subject to the
   vicissitude of time. The fifteenth canon of the council of Nice, which
   prohibited and declared invalid the transfer of the clergy from one
   place to another, [629] Gregory Nazianzen, fifty-seven years later
   (382), reckons among statutes long dead. [630] Gregory himself
   repeatedly changed his location, and Chrysostom was called from Antioch
   to Constantinople. Leo I. spoke with strong disrespect of the third
   canon of the second ecumenical council, for assigning to the bishop of
   Constantinople the first rank after the bishop of Rome; and for the
   same reason be protested against the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth
   ecumenical council. [631] Indeed the Roman church has made no point of
   adopting all the disciplinary laws enacted by those synods.

   Augustine, the ablest and the most devout of the fathers, conceived, in
   the best vein of his age, a philosophical view of this authority of the
   councils, which strikes a wise and wholesome mean between the extremes
   of veneration and disparagement, and approaches the free spirit of
   evangelical Protestantism. He justly subordinates these councils to the
   Holy Scriptures, which are the highest and the perfect rule of faith,
   and supposes that the decrees of a council may be, not indeed set aside
   and repealed, yet enlarged and completed by, the deeper research of a
   later day. They embody, for the general need, the results already duly
   prepared by preceding theological controversies, and give the
   consciousness of the church, on the subject in question, the clearest
   and most precise expression possible at the time. But this
   consciousness itself is subject to development. While the Holy
   Scriptures present the truth unequivocally and infallibly, and allow no
   room for doubt, the judgment of bishops may be corrected and enriched
   with new truths from the word of God, by the wiser judgment of other
   bishops; the judgment of the provincial council by that of a general;
   and the views of one general council by those of a later. [632] In this
   Augustine presumed, that all the transactions of a council were
   conducted in the spirit of Christian humility, harmony, and love; but
   had he attended the council of Ephesus, in 431, to which he was
   summoned about the time of his death, he would, to his grief, have
   found the very opposite spirit reigning there. Augustine, therefore,
   manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine,
   which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through
   the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive
   error. For in a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the
   authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic
   church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: "I would
   not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church
   compel me." [633] In like manner Vincentius Lerinensis teaches, that
   the church doctrine passes indeed through various stages of growth in
   knowledge, and becomes more and more clearly defined in opposition to
   ever-rising errors, but can never become altered or dismembered. [634]

   The Protestant church makes the authority of the general councils, and
   of all ecclesiastical tradition, depend on the degree of its conformity
   to the Holy Scriptures; while the Greek and Roman churches make
   Scripture and tradition coordinate. The Protestant church justly holds
   the first four general councils in high, though not servile,
   veneration, and has received their statements of doctrine into her
   confessions of faith, because she perceives in them, though compassed
   with human imperfection, the clearest and most suitable expression of
   the teaching of the Scriptures respecting the Trinity and the
   divine-human person of Christ. Beyond these statements the judgment of
   the church (which must be carefully distinguished from theological
   speculation) has not to this day materially advanced;--the highest
   tribute to the wisdom and importance of those councils. But this is not
   saying that the Nicene and the later Athanasian creeds are the non plus
   ultra of all the church's knowledge of the articles therein defined.
   Rather is it the duty of theology and of the church, while prizing and
   holding fast those earlier attainments, to study the same problems ever
   anew, to penetrate further and further these sacred fundamental
   mysteries of Christianity, and to bring to light new treasures from the
   inexhaustible mines of the Word of God, under the guidance of the same
   Holy Spirit, who lives and works in the church at this day as mightily
   as he did in the fifth century and the fourth. Christology, for
   example, by the development of the doctrine of the two states of Christ
   in the Lutheran church, and of the three offices of Christ in the
   Reformed, has been substantially enriched; the old Catholic doctrine,
   which was fixed with unerring tact at the council of Chalcedon, being
   directly concerned only with the two natures of Christ, as against the
   dualism of Nestorius and the monophysitism of Eutyches.

   With this provision for further and deeper soundings of Scripture
   truth, Protestantism feels itself one with the ancient Greek and Latin
   church in the bond of ecumenical orthodoxy. But toward the disciplinary
   canons of the ecumenical councils its position is still more free and
   independent than that of the Roman church. Those canons are based upon
   an essentially unprotestant, that is, hierarchical and sacrificial
   conception of church order and worship, which the Lutheran and Anglican
   reformation in part, and the Zwinglian and Calvinistic almost entirely
   renounced. Yet this is not to say that much may not still be learned,
   in the sphere of discipline, from those councils, and that perhaps many
   an ancient custom or institution is not worthy to be revived in the
   spirit of evangelical freedom.

   The moral character of those councils was substantially parallel with
   that of earlier and later ecclesiastical assemblies, and cannot
   therefore be made a criterion of their historical importance and their
   dogmatic authority. They faithfully reflect both the light and the
   shade of the ancient church. They bear the heavenly treasure in earthen
   vessels. If even among the inspired apostles at the council of
   Jerusalem there was much debate, [635] and soon after, among Peter,
   Paul, and Barnabas, a violent, though only temporary collision, we must
   of course expect much worse of the bishops of the Nicene and the
   succeeding age, and of a church already interwoven with a morally
   degenerate state. Together with abundant talents, attainments, and
   virtues, there were gathered also at the councils ignorance, intrigues,
   and partisan passions, which had already been excited on all sides by
   long controversies preceding and now met and arrayed themselves, as
   hostile armies, for open combat. For those great councils, all
   occasioned by controversies on the most important and the most
   difficult problems of theology, are, in fact, to the history of
   doctrine, what decisive battles are to the history of war. Just because
   religion is the deepest and holiest interest of man, are religious
   passions wont to be the most violent and bitter; especially in a time
   when all classes, from imperial court to market stall, take the
   liveliest interest in theological speculation, and are drawn into the
   common vortex of excitement. Hence the notorious rabies theologorum was
   more active in the fourth and fifth centuries than it has been in any
   other period of history, excepting, perhaps, in the great revolution of
   the sixteenth century, and the confessional polemics of the
   seventeenth.

   We have on this point the testimony of contemporaries and of the acts
   of the councils themselves. St. Gregory Nazianzen, who, in the judgment
   of Socrates, was the most devout and eloquent man of his age, [636] and
   who himself, as bishop of Constantinople, presided for a time over the
   second ecumenical council, had so bitter an observation and experience
   as even to lose, though without sufficient reason, all confidence in
   councils, and to call them in his poems "assemblies of cranes and
   geese." "To tell the truth" thus in 382 (a year after the second
   ecumenical council, and doubtless including that assembly in his
   allusion) he answered Procopius, who in the name of the emperor
   summoned him in vain to a synod--"to tell the truth, I am inclined to
   shun every collection of bishops, because I have never yet seen that a
   synod came to a good end, or abated evils instead of increasing them.
   For in those assemblies (and I do not think I express myself too
   strongly here) indescribable contentiousness and ambition prevail, and
   it is easier for one to incur the reproach of wishing to set himself up
   as judge of the wickedness of others, than to attain any success in
   putting the wickedness away. Therefore I have withdrawn myself, and
   have found rest to my soul only in solitude." [637] It is true, the
   contemplative Gregory had an aversion to all public life, and in such
   views yielded unduly to his personal inclinations. And in any case he
   is inconsistent; for he elsewhere speaks with great respect of the
   council of Nice, and was, next to Athanasius, the leading advocate of
   the Nicene creed. Yet there remains enough in his many unfavorable
   pictures of the bishops and synods of his time, to dispel all illusions
   of their immaculate purity. Beausobre correctly observes, that either
   Gregory the Great must be a slanderer, or the bishops of his day were
   very remiss. In the fifth century it was no better, but rather worse.
   At the third general council, at Ephesus, 431, all accounts agree that
   shameful intrigue, uncharitable lust of condemnation, and coarse
   violence of conduct were almost as prevalent as in the notorious
   robber-council of Ephesus in 449; though with the important difference,
   that the former synod was contending for truth, the latter for error.
   Even at Chalcedon, the introduction of the renowned expositor and
   historian Theodoret provoked a scene, which almost involuntarily
   reminds us of the modern brawls of Greek and Roman monks at the holy
   sepulchre under the restraining supervision of the Turkish police. His
   Egyptian opponents shouted with all their might: "The faith is gone!
   Away with him, this teacher of Nestorius!" His friends replied with
   equal violence: "They forced us [at the robber-council] by blows to
   subscribe; away with the Manichaeans, the enemies of Flavian, the
   enemies of the faith! Away with the murderer Dioscurus? Who does not
   know his wicked deeds? The Egyptian bishops cried again: Away with the
   Jew, the adversary of God, and call him not bishop!" To which the
   oriental bishops answered: "Away with the rioters, away with the
   murderers! The orthodox man belongs to the council!" At last the
   imperial commissioners interfered, and put an end to what they justly
   called an unworthy and useless uproar. [638]

   In all these outbreaks of human passion, however, we must not forget
   that the Lord was sitting in the ship of the church, directing her
   safely through the billows and storms. The Spirit of truth, who was not
   to depart from her, always triumphed over error at last, and even
   glorified himself through the weaknesses of his instruments. Upon this
   unmistakable guidance from above, only set out by the contrast of human
   imperfections, our reverence for the councils must be based. Soli Deo
   gloria; or, in the language of Chrysostom: Doxa to theo panton heneken!
     __________________________________________________________________

   [608] The name sunodos oikoumenike(concilium universale, s. generale)
   occurs first in the sixth canon of the council of Constantinople in
   381. The oikoumene (sc. ge) is, properly, the whole inhabited earth;
   then, in a narrower sense, the earth inhabited by Greeks, in
   distinction from the barbarian countries; finally, with the Romans, the
   orbis Romanus, the political limits of which coincided with those of
   the ancient Graeco-Latin church. But as the bishops of the barbarians
   outside the empire were admitted, the ecumenical councils represented
   the entire Catholic Christian world.

   [609] Acts xv., and Gal. ii. Comp. my History of the Apostolic Church,
   §§ 67-69 (Engl. ed., p. 245-257). Mansi, l.c. tom. i. p. 22 (De
   quadruplici Synodo Apostolorum), and other Roman Catholic writers,
   speak of four Apostolic Synods: Acts i. 13 sqq., for the election of an
   apostle; ch. vi. for the election of deacons; ch. xv. for the
   settlement of the question of the binding authority of the law of
   Moses; and ch. xxi. for a similar object. But we should distinguish
   between a private conference and consultation, and a public synod.

   [610] It is usually supposed there were only four or five different
   kinds of council. But Hefele reckons eight (i. p. 3 and 4) adding to
   those above named the irregularsunodoi endemousai, also the synods of
   the bishops of two or more provinces finally the concilia mixta,
   consisting of the secular and spiritual dignitaries province, as
   separate classes.

   [611] A similar order, with different times, appears still earlier in
   the 37th of the apostolic canons, where it is said (in the ed. of
   Ueltzen, p. 244):Deuterontou etous sunodos genestho ton episkopon.

   [612] This Sunday, the celebration of which was ordered by the empress
   Theodora in 842, is called among the Greeks the kuriaketes orthodoxias.
   On that day the ancient councils are dramatically reproduced in the
   public worship.

   [613] The schismatical Donatists alone held a council at Carthage in
   308, of two hundred and seventy bishops (Comp. Wiltsch, Kirchl. Geogr.
   u. Statistik, i. p. 53 and 54); while the second ecumenical council
   numbered only a hundred and fifty, the third a hundred and sixty (a
   hundred and ninety-eight), and the fifth a hundred and sixty-four.

   [614] Schröckh says (vol. viii. p. 201), unjustly, that this general
   consent belongs among the "empty conceits." Of course the unanimity
   must be limited to orthodox Christendom.

   [615] This is conceded even by the Roman Catholic church historian
   Hefele (i. p. 7), in opposition to, Bellarmine and other Romish
   divines."The first eight general councils," says he, "were appointed
   and convoked by the emperors; all the subsequent councils, on the
   contrary [i.e. all the Roman Catholic general councils], by the popes;
   but even in those first councils there appears a certain participation
   of the popes in their convocation, more or less prominent in particular
   instances." The latter assertion is too sweeping, and can by no means
   be verified in the history of the first two of these councils, nor of
   the fifth.

   [616] As regards the council of Nicaea: according to Eusebius and all
   the ancient authorities, it was called by Constantinealone; and not
   till three centuries later, at the council of 680, was it claimed that
   Pope Sylvester had any share in the convocation. As to the council of
   Constantinople in 381: the Roman theory, that Pope Damasus summoned it
   in conjunction with Theodosius, rests on a confusion of this council
   with another and an unimportant one of 382. Comp. the notes of Valesius
   to Theodoret, Hist. Ecel. v. 9; and Hefele (who here himself corrects
   his earlier view), vol. i. p. 8, and vol. ii. p. 36.

   [617] Euseb., Vita Const. iii. 15: Christou basileias edoxenantis
   phantasiousthaieikona, onartheinai all' ouch hupar to ginomenon.

   [618] Mansi, vii. 170 sqq. The emperor is called there not simply
   divine, which would be idolatrous enough, but most divine, ho
   theiotatos; kaieusebestatos hemondespotes, divinissimus et piissimus
   noster imperator ad sanctam synodum dixit, etc. And these adulatory
   epithets occur repeatedly in the acts of this council.

   [619] Eusebius, Vita Const. iii. 13: Homendetauteipon Romaia
   glotte[which was still the official language], huphermeneuontos
   heterou, paredidoutonlogontois tes sunodouproedrois. Yet, according to
   the immediately following words of Eusebius, the emperor continued to
   take lively interest in the proceedings, hearing, speaking, and
   exhorting to harmony. Eusebius'whole account of this synod is brief and
   unsatisfactory.

   [620] To wit, in a letter of the council to Leo (Ep. 89, in the
   Epistles of Leo, ed. Baller., tom. i. p. 1099), and in a letter of
   Marcian to Leo (Ep. 110, tom. i. p. 1182 sq.).

   [621] Acts xv. 22: Toteedoxetois apostolois kaitois presbuterois
   sunhole te ekklesia; and v. 23:
   Hoiapostoloikaioipresbuteroikaioiadelphoitois ... adelphois. k.t.l.
   Comp. my Hist. of the Apostolic Church, § 69, and § 128.

   [622] Edoxetopneumatihagio kaihemin, Acts xv. 28. The provincial
   councils, too, had already used this phrase; e.g. the Concil.
   Carthaginiense, of 252 (in the Opera Cypriani): "Placuit nobis, Sancto
   Spiritu suggerente, et Domino per visiones multas et manifestas
   admonente." So the council of Arles, in 314: "Placuit ergo, presente
   Spiritu Sancto et angelis ejus."

   [623] Theianentolen, and theianboulesin, in Euseb., Vita Const. iii.
   20. Comp. his Ep. ad Eccl. Alexandr., in Socrates, H. E. i. 9 where he
   uses similar expressions.

   [624] Isidore of Pelusium also styles the Nicene council divinely
   inspired, theothenempneustheisa (Ep. 1. iv. Ep. 99). So Basil the
   Great, Ep. 114 (in the Benedictine edition of his Opera omnia, tom.
   iii. p. 207), where he says that the 318 fathers of Nice have not
   spoken without the energeiatouhagioupneumatos(non sine Spiritus Sancti
   afflatu).

   [625] Act. i., in Mansi, vi. p. 672. We quote from the Latin
   translation: "Nullo autem modo patimur a quibusdam concuti definitam
   fidem, sive fidei symbolum, a sanctis patribus nostris qui apud Nicaeam
   convenerunt illis temporibus: nec permittimus aut nobis, aut aliis,
   mutare aliquod verbum ex his quae ibidem continentur, aut unam syllabam
   praeterire, memores dicentis: Ne transferas terminos aeternos, quos
   posuerunt patres tui (Prov. xxii. 8; Matt. x. 20). Non enim erant ipsi
   loquentes, sed ipse Spiritus Dei et Patris qui procedit ex ipso."

   [626] Hoblasphemetheis parautoukurios Ies. Christos oHurisediates
   parouses hagiotates sunodou.

   [627] Lib. i. Ep. 25 (ad Joannem episcopum Constant., et caeteros
   patriarchas, in Migne's edition of Gr. Opera, tom. iii. p. 478, or in
   the Bened. ed. iii. 515): "Praeterea, quia corde creditur ad justitiam,
   ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, sicut sancti evangelii quatuor
   libros, sic quatuor concilia suscipere et venerari me fateor. Nicaenum
   scilicet in quo perversum Arii dogma destruitur; Constantinopolitanum
   quoque, in quo Eunomii et Macedonii error convincitur; Ephesinum etiam
   primum, in quo Nestorii impietas judicatur; Chalcedonense vero, in quo
   Eutychetii [Eutychis] Dioscorique pravitas reprobatur, tota devotione
   complector, integerrima approbatione custodio: quia in his velut in
   quadrato lapide, sanctae fidei structura consurgit, et cujuslibet vitae
   atque actionis existat, quisquis eorum soliditatem non tenet, etiam si
   lapis esse cernitur, tamen extra aedificium jacet. Quintum quoque
   concilium pariter veneror, in quo et epistola, quae Ibae dicitur,
   erroris plena, reprobatur," etc.

   [628] Justin. Novell. cxxxi."Quatuor synodorum dogmata sicut sanctas
   scripturas accipimus, et regulas sicut leges observamus."

   [629] Conc. Nic. can. 15: HuOsteapopoleos eis
   polinmemetabaineinmeteepiskoponmetepresbuteronmetediakonon. This
   prohibition arose from the theory of the relation between a clergyman
   and his congregation, as a mystical marriage, and was designed to
   restrain clerical ambition. It appears in the Can. Apost. 13, 14, but
   was often violated. At the Nicene council itself there were several
   bishops, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eustathius of Antioch, who had
   exchanged their first bishopric for another and a better.

   [630] Nomous palaitethnekotas, Carm. de vita sua, v. 1810.

   [631] Epist. 106 (al. 80) ad Anatolium, and Epist. 105 ad Pulcheriam.
   Comp. above, § 57. Even Gregory I., so late as 600, writes in reference
   to the canones of the Constantinopolitan council of 381: "Romana autem
   ecclesia eosdem canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec
   accepit; in hoc autem eam accepit, quod est per eam contra Macedonium
   definitum." Lib. vii. Ep. 34, ad Eulogium episcopum Alexandr. (tom.
   iii. p. 882, ed. Bened., and in Migne's ed., iii. 893.)

   [632] De Baptismo contra Donatistas, I. ii. 3 (in the Benedictine
   edition of August. Opera, tom. ix. p. 98): "Quis autem nesciat, sanctam
   Scripturam canonicam, tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, certis suis
   terminis contineri, eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis
   ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit,
   utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quidquid in ea scriptum esse
   constiterit; Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum canonem
   vel scripta sunt vel scribuntur, et per sermonem forte sapientiorem
   cujuslibet in ea re peritioris, et per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem
   auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam, et per concilia licere
   reprehendi, si quid in eis forte a veritate deviatum est; et ipsa
   concilia, quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum
   conciliorum auctoritate, quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine
   ullis ambagibus cedere; ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus
   emendari, quum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat et
   cognoscitur quod latebat; sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, sine
   ulla inflata cervice arrogantiae, sine ulla contentione lividae
   invidiae, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum caritate
   christiana." Comp. the passage Contra Maximinum Arianum, ii. cap. 14, §
   3 (in the Bened. ed., tom. viii. p. 704), where he will have even the
   decision of the Nicene council concerning the homousion measured by the
   higher standard of the Scriptures.

   [633] Contra Epistolam Manichaei, lib. i. c. 5 (in the Bened. ed., tom.
   viii. p. 154): "Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me ecclesiae
   catholicae commoveret auctoritas."

   [634] Commonitorium, c. 23 (in Migne's Curs. Patrol. tom. 50, p. 667):
   "Sed forsitan dicit aliquis: Nullusne ergo in ecclesia Christi
   profectus habebitur religionis? Habeatur plane et maximus .... Sed ita
   tamen ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatio. Si quidem ad
   profectum pertinet ut in semetipsum unaquaeque res amplificetur; ad
   permutationem vero, ut aliquid ex alio in aliud transvertatur. Crescat
   igitur oportet et multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quam
   omnium, tam unius hominis, quam totius ecclesiae, aetatum ac seculorum
   gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia, sed in suo dutaxat
   genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia."

   [635] Acts xv. 6: Polles suzeteseos genomenes; which Luther indeed
   renders quite too strongly: " After they had wrangled long." The
   English versions from Tyndale to King James translate: " much
   disputing."

   [636] Hist. Eccl. lib. v. cap. 7.

   [637] Ep. ad Procop. 55, old order (al. 130). Similar representations
   occur in Ep. 76, 84; Carm. de vita sua, v. 1680-1688; Carm. x. v. 92;
   Carm. Adv. Episc. v. 154. Comp. Ullmann, Gregor. von Naz., p. 246 sqq.,
   and p. 270. It is remarkable that Gibbon makes no use of these passages
   to support his summary judgment of the general councils at the end of
   his twentieth chapter, where he says: "The progress of time and
   superstition erased the memory of the weakness, the passion, the
   ignorance, which disgraced these ecclesiastical synods; and the
   Catholic world has unanimously submitted to the infallible decrees of
   the general councils."

   [638] Ekboeseis demotikai. See Harduin, tom. ii. p. 71 sqq., and Mansi,
   tom. vi. p. 590 sq. Comp. also Hefele, ii. p. 406 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 66. List of the Ecumenical Councils of the Ancient Church,

   We only add, by way of a general view, a list of all the ecumenical
   councils of the Graeco-Roman church, with a brief account of their
   character and work.

   1. The Concilium Nicaenum I., a.d. 325; held at Nicaea in Bithynia, a
   lively commercial town near the imperial residence of Nicomedia, and
   easily accessible by land and sea. It consisted of three hundred and
   eighteen bishops, [639] besides a large number of priests, deacons, and
   acolytes, mostly from the East, and was called by Constantine the
   Great, for the settlement of the Arian controversy. Having become, by
   decisive victories in 323, master of the whole Roman empire, he desired
   to complete the restoration of unity and peace with the help of the
   dignitaries of the church. The result of this council was the
   establishment (by anticipation) of the doctrine of the true divinity of
   Christ, the identity of essence between the Son and the Father. The
   fundamental importance of this dogma, the number, learning, piety and
   wisdom of the bishops, many of whom still bore the marks of the
   Diocletian persecution, the personal presence of the first Christian
   emperor, of Eusebius, "the father of church history," and of
   Athanasius, "the father of orthodoxy" (though at that time only
   archdeacon), as well as the remarkable character of this epoch,
   combined in giving to this first general synod a peculiar weight and
   authority. It is styled emphatically "the great and holy council,"
   holds the highest place among all the councils, especially with the
   Greeks, [640] and still lives in the Nicene Creed, which is second in
   authority only to the ever venerable Apostles' Creed. This symbol was,
   however, not finally settled and completed in its present form
   (excepting the still later Latin insertion of filioque), until the
   second general council. Besides this the fathers assembled at Nicaea
   issued a number of canons, usually reckoned twenty on various questions
   of discipline; the most important being those on the rights of
   metropolitans, the time of Easter, and the validity of heretical
   baptism.

   2. The Concilium Constantinopolitanum I., a.d. 381 summoned by
   Theodosius the Great, and held at the imperial city, which had not even
   name in history till five years after the former council. This council,
   however, was exclusively oriental, and comprised only a hundred and
   fifty bishops, as the emperor had summoned none but the adherents of
   the Nicene party, which had become very much reduced under the previous
   reign. The emperor did not attend it. Meletius of Antioch was president
   till his death; then Gregory Nazianzen; and, after his resignation, the
   newly elected patriarch Nectarius of Constantinople. The council
   enlarged the Nicene confession by an article on the divinity and
   personality of the Holy Ghost, in opposition to the Macedonians or
   Pneumatomachists (hence the title Symbolum
   Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum), and issued seven more canons, of which
   the Latin versions, however, give only the first four, leaving the
   genuineness of the other three, as many think, in doubt.

   3. The Concilium Ephesinum, a.d. 431; called by Theodosius II., in
   connection with the Western co-emperor Valentinian III., and held under
   the direction of the ambitious and violent Cyril of Alexandria. This
   council consisted of, at first, a hundred and sixty bishops, afterward
   a hundred and ninety-eight, [641] including, for the first time, papal
   delegates from Rome, who were instructed not to mix in the debates, but
   to sit as judges over the opinions of the rest. It condemned the error
   of Nestorius on the relation of the two natures in Christ, without,
   stating clearly the correct doctrine. It produced, therefore, but a
   negative result, and is the least important of the first four councils,
   as it stands lowest also in moral character. It is entirely rejected by
   the Nestorian or Chaldaic Christians. Its six canons relate exclusively
   to Nestorian and Pelagian affairs, and are wholly omitted by Dionysius
   Exiguus in his collection.

   4. The Concilium Chalcedonense, a.d. 451; summoned by the emperor
   Marcian, at the instance of the Roman bishop Leo; held at Chalcedon in
   Bithynia, opposite Constantinople; and composed of five hundred and
   twenty (some say six hundred and thirty) bishops. [642] Among these
   were three delegates of the bishop of Rome, two bishops of Africa, and
   the rest all Greeks and Orientals. The fourth general council fixed the
   orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ in opposition to Eutychianism
   and Nestorianism, and enacted thirty canons (according to some
   manuscripts only twenty-seven or twenty-eight), of which the
   twenty-eighth was resisted by the Roman legates and Leo I. This was the
   most numerous, and next to the Nicene, the most important of all the
   general councils, but is repudiated by all the Monophysite sects of the
   Eastern church.

   5. The Concilium Constantinopolitanum II. was assembled a full century
   later, by the emperor Tustinian, a.d. 553, without consent of the pope,
   for the adjustment of the tedious Monophysite controversy. It was
   presided over by the patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople, consisted
   of only one hundred and sixty-four bishops, and issued fourteen
   anathemas against the three chapters, [643] so called, or the
   christological views of three departed bishops and divines, Theodore of
   Mopsueste, Theodoret of Cyros, and Ibas of Edessa, who were charged
   with leaning toward the Nestorian heresy. The fifth council was not
   recognized, however, by many Western bishops, even after the
   vacillating Pope Vigilius gave in his assent to it, and it induced a
   temporary schism between Upper Italy and the Roman see. As to
   importance, it stands far below the four previous councils. Its Acts,
   in Greek, with the exception of the fourteen anathemas, are lost.

   Besides these, there are two later councils, which have attained among
   the Greeks and Latins an undisputed ecumenical authority: the Third
   Council of Constantinople, under Constantine Progonatus, a.d. 680,
   which condemned Monothelitism (and Pope Honorius, 638), [644] and
   consummated the old Catholic christology; and the Second Council of
   Nicaea, under the empress Irene, a.d. 787, which sanctioned the
   image-worship of the Catholic church, but has no dogmatical importance.

   Thus Nicaea--now the miserable Turkish hamlet Is-nik [645] --has the
   honor of both opening and closing the succession of acknowledged
   ecumenical councils.

   From this time forth the Greeks and Latins part, and ecumenical
   councils are no longer to be named. The Greeks considered the second
   Trullan [646] (or the fourth Constantinopolitan) council of 692, which
   enacted no symbol of faith, but canons only, not an independent eighth
   council, but an appendix to the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils
   (hence, called the Quinisexta sc. synodus); against which view the
   Latin church has always protested. The Latin church, on the other hand,
   elevates the fourth council of Constantinople, a.d. 869, [647] which
   deposed the patriarch Photius, the champion of the Greek church in her
   contest with the Latin, to the dignity of an eighth ecumenical council;
   but this council was annulled for the Greek church by the subsequent
   restoration of Photius. The Roman church also, in pursuance of her
   claims to exclusive catholicity, adds to the seven or eight Greek
   councils twelve or more Latin general councils, down to the Vatican
   (1870); but to all these the Greek and Protestant churches can concede
   only a sectional character. Three hundred and thirty-six years elapsed
   between the last undisputed Graeco-Latin ecumenical council of the
   ancient church (a.d. 787), and the first Latin ecumenical council of
   the mediaeval church (1123). The authority of the papal see had to be
   established in the intervening centuries. [648]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [639] This is the usual estimate, resting on the authority of
   Athanasius, Basil (Ep. 114; Opera, t. iii. p 207, ed. Bened.),
   Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret; whence the council is sometimes
   called the Assembly of the Three Hundred and Eighteen. Other data
   reduce the number to three hundred, or to two hundred and seventy, or
   two hundred and fifty, or two hundred and eighteen; while later
   tradition swells it to two thousand or more.

   [640] For some time the Egyptian and Syrian churches commemorated the
   council of Nicaea by an annual festival.

   [641] The opposition council, which John of Antioch, on his subsequent
   arrival, held in the same city in the cause of Nestorius and under the
   protection of the imperial commissioner Candidian, numbered forty-three
   members, and excommunicated Cyril, as Cyril had excommunicated
   Nestorius.

   [642] The synod itself, in a letter to Leo, states the number as only
   five hundred and twenty; Leo, on the contrary (Ep. 102), speaks of
   about six hundred members; and the usual opinion (Tillemont, Memoires,
   t. xv. p. 641) raises the whole number of members, including deputies,
   to six hundred and thirty.

   [643] Tria capitula, Kephaleia.

   [644] The condemnation of a departed pope as a heretic by an ecumenical
   council is so inconsistent with the claims of papal infallibility, that
   Romish historians have tried their utmost to dispute the fact, or to
   weaken its force by sophistical pleading.

   [645] Eis Nikaian. Nice and Nicene are properly misnomers, but
   sanctioned by the use of Gibbon and other great English writers.

   [646] Trullum was a saloon with a cupola in the imperial palace of
   Constantinople.

   [647] The Latins call it the fourth because they reject the fourth
   Constantinopolitan (the second Trullan) council of 692, because of its
   canons, and the fifth of 754 because it condemned the worship of
   images, which was subsequently sanctioned by the second council of
   Nicaea in 787.

   [648] On the number of the ecumenical councils till that of Trent the
   Roman divines themselves are not agreed. The Gallicans reckon
   twenty-one, Bellarmine eighteen, Hefele only sixteen. The undisputed
   ones, besides the eight already mentioned Graeco-Latin councils, are
   these eight Latin: the first Lateran (Roman) council, a.d.1123; the
   second Lateran, a.d.1139; the third Lateran, a.d.1179; the fourth
   Lateran, a.d.1215); the first of Lyons, a.d.1245; the second of Lyons,
   a.d.1274; that of Florence, a.d.1439; (the fifth Lateran, 1512-1517, is
   disputed;) and that of Trent, a.d.1545-1563. The ecumenical character
   of the three reformatory councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, in the
   beginning of the fifteenth century, and of the fifth Lateran council,
   a.d.1512-1517, is questioned among the Roman divines, and is
   differently viewed upon ultramontane and upon Gallican principles.
   Hefele considers them partially ecumenical; that is, so far as they
   were ratified by the pope. [But in the Revised edition of his
   Conciliengeschichte, 1873 sqq., he reckons twenty ecumenical councils,
   including the Vatican, 1870. See Appendix, p. 1032.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 67. Books of Ecclesiastical Law.

   I. Bibiliotheca juris canonici veteris, ed. Voellus (theologian of the
   Sorbonne) and Justellus (Justeau, counsellor and secretary to the
   French king), Par. 1661, 2 vols. fol. (Vol. i. contains the canons of
   the universal church, Greek and Latin, the ecclesiastical canons of
   Dionysius Exiguus, or of the old Roman church, the canons of the
   African church, etc. See a list of contents in Darling's Cyclop.
   Bibliographica, p. 1702 sq.)

   II. See the literature in vol. ii. § 56 (p. 183). The brothers
   Ballerini: De antiquis tum editis tum ineditis collectionibus et
   collectoribus canonum ad Gratianum usque in ed. Opp. Leon M. Ven., 1753
   sqq. The treatises of Quesnel, Marca, Constant, Drey, Theiner, etc., on
   the history of the collections of canons. Comp. Ferd. Walther: Lehrbuch
   des Kirchenrechts, p. 109 sqq., 8th ed., 1839.

   The universal councils, through their disciplinary enactments or
   canons, were the main fountain of ecclesiastical law. To their canons
   were added the decrees of the most important provincial councils of the
   fourth century, at Ancyra (314), Neo-Caesarea (314), Antioch (341),
   Sardica (343), Gangra (365), and Laodicea (between 343 and 381); and in
   a third series, the orders of eminent bishops, popes, and emperors.
   From these sources arose, after the beginning of the fifth century, or
   at all events before the council of Chalcedon, various collections of
   the church laws in the East, in North Africa, in Italy, Gaul, and
   Spain; which, however, had only provincial authority, and in many
   respects did not agree among themselves. A codex canonum ecclesiae
   universae did not exist. The earlier collections because eclipsed by
   two, which, the one in the West, the other in the East, attained the
   highest consideration.

   The most important Latin collection comes from the Roman, though by
   descent Scythian, abbot Dionysius Exiguus, [649] who also,
   notwithstanding the chronological error at the base of his reckoning,
   immortalized himself by the introduction of the Christian calendar, the
   "Dionysian Era." It was a great thought of this "little" monk to view
   Christ as the turning point of ages, and to introduce this view into
   chronology. About the year 500 Dionysius translated for the bishop
   Stephen of Salona a collection of canons from Greek into Latin, which
   is still extant, with its prefatory address to Stephen. [650] It
   contains, first, the, fifty so-called Apostolic Canons, which pretend
   to have been collected by Clement of Rome, but in truth were a gradual
   production of the third and fourth centuries; [651] then the canons of
   the most important councils of the fourth and fifth centuries,
   including those of Sardica and Africa; and lastly, the papal decretal
   letters from Siricius (385) to Anastasius II. (498). The Codex Dionysii
   was gradually enlarged by additions, genuine and spurious, and through
   the favor of the popes, attained the authority of law almost throughout
   the West. Yet there were other collections also in use, particularly in
   Spain and North Africa.

   Some fifty years after Dionysius, John Scholasticus, previously an
   advocate, then presbyter at Antioch, and after 564 patriarch of
   Constantinople, published a collection of canons in Greek, [652] which
   surpassed the former in completeness and convenience of arrangement,
   and for this reason, as well as the eminence of the author, soon rose
   to universal authority in the Greek church. In it he gives eighty-five
   Apostolic Canons, and the ordinances of the councils of Ancyra (314)
   and Nicaea (325), down to that of Chalcedon (451), in fifty titles,
   according to the order of subjects. The second Trullan council
   (Quinisextum, of 692), which passes with the Greeks for ecumenical,
   adopted the eighty-five Apostolic Canons, while it rejected the
   Apostolic Constitutions, because, though, like the canons, of apostolic
   origin, they had been early adulterated. Thus arose the difference
   between the Greek and Latin churches in reference to the number of the
   so-called Apostolic canons; the Latin church retaining only the fifty
   of the Dionysian collection.

   The same John, while patriarch of Constantinople, compiled from the
   Novelles of Justinian a collection of the ecclesiastical state-laws or
   nomoi, as they were called in distinction from the synodal church-laws
   or kanones. Practical wants then led to a union of the two, under the
   title of Nomocanon.

   These books of ecclesiastical law served to complete and confirm the
   hierarchical organization, to regulate the life of the clergy, and to
   promote order and discipline; but they tended also to fix upon the
   church an outward legalism, and to embarrass the spirit of progress.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [649] It is uncertain whether he obtained the surname Exiguus from his
   small stature or his monastic humility.

   [650] It may be found in the above-cited Bibliotheca, vol. i., and in
   all good collections of councils. He says in the preface that,
   confusione priscae translationis (the Prisca or Itala) offensus, he has
   undertaken a new translation of the Greek canons.

   [651] "Canones, qui dicuntur apostolorum, ... quibus plurimi consensum
   non praebuere facilem;" implying that Dionysius himself, with many
   others, doubted their apostolic origin. In a later collection of canons
   by Dionysius, of which only the preface remains, he entirely omitted
   the apostolic canons, with the remark: "Quos non admisit universitas,
   ego quoque in hoc opere praetermisi." On the pseudo-apostolic Canons
   and Constitutions, comp. vol. i. § 113 (p. 440-442), and the well-known
   critical work of the Roman Catholic theologian Drey.

   [652] Suntagmakanonon, Concordia canonum, in the Bibliotheca of
   Justellus, tom. ii.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER VI.

   CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND SCHISMS.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 68. Decline of Discipline.

   The principal sources are the books of ecclesiastical law and the acts
   of councils. Comp. the literature at § 67, and at vol. i. § 114.

   The union of the church with the state shed, in general, an injurious
   influence upon the discipline of the church; and that, in two opposite
   directions.

   On the one hand it increased the stringency of discipline and led to a
   penal code for spiritual offences. The state gave her help to the
   church, lent the power of law to acts of suspension and
   excommunication, and accompanied those acts with civil penalties. Hence
   the innumerable depositions and banishments of bishops during the
   theological controversies of the Nicene and the following age,
   especially under the influence of the Byzantine despotism and the
   religious intolerance and bigotry of the times. Even the penalty of
   death was decreed, at least against the Priscillianists, though under
   the protest of nobler divines, who clave to the spiritual character of
   the church and of her weapons. [653] Heresy was regarded as the most
   grievous and unpardonable crime against society, and was treated
   accordingly by the ruling party, without respect of creed.

   But on the other hand discipline became weakened. With the increasing
   stringency against heretics, firmness against practical errors
   diminished. Hatred of heresy and laxity of morals, zeal for purity of
   doctrine and indifference to purity of life, which ought to exclude
   each other, do really often stand in union. Think of the history of
   Pharisaism at the time of Christ, of orthodox Lutheranism in its
   opposition to Spener and the Pietistic movement, and of prelatical
   Anglicanism in its conflict with Methodism and the evangelical party.
   Even in the Johannean age this was the case in the church of Ephesus,
   which prefigured in this respect both the light and shade of the later
   Eastern church. [654] The earnest, but stiff, mechanical penitential
   discipline, with its four grades of penance, which had developed itself
   during the Dioclesian persecution, [655] continued in force, it is
   true, as to the letter, and was repeatedly reaffirmed by the councils
   of the fourth century. But the great change of circumstances rendered
   the practical execution of it more and more difficult, by the very
   multiplication and high position, of those on whom it ought to be
   enforced. In that mighty revolution under Constantine the church lost
   her virginity, and allied herself with the mass of heathendom, which
   had not yet experienced an inward change. Not seldom did the emperors
   themselves, and other persons of authority, who ought to have led the
   way with a good example, render themselves, with all their zeal for
   theoretical orthodoxy, most worthy of suspension and excommunication by
   their scandalous conduct, while they were surrounded by weak or worldly
   bishops, who cared more for the favor of their earthly masters, than
   for the honor of their heavenly Lord and the dignity of the church.
   Even Eusebius, otherwise one of the better bishops of his time, had no
   word of rebuke for the gross crimes of Constantine, but only the most
   extravagant eulogies for his merits.

   In the Greek church the discipline gradually decayed, to the great
   disadvantage of public morality, and every one was allowed to partake
   of the communion according to his conscience. The bishops alone
   reserved the right of debarring the vicious from the table of the Lord.
   The patriarch Nectarius of Constantinople, about 390, abolished the
   office of penitential priest (presbyter poenitentiarius), who was set
   over the execution of the penitential discipline. The occasion of this
   act was furnished by a scandalous occurrence: the violation of a lady
   of rank in the church by a worthless deacon, when she came to submit
   herself to public penance. The example of Nectarius was soon followed
   by the other oriental bishops. [656]

   Socrates and Sozomen, who inclined to the severity of the Novatians,
   date the decline of discipline and of the former purity of morals from
   this act. But the real cause lay further back, in the connection of the
   church with the temporal power. Had the state been pervaded with the
   religious earnestness and zeal of Christianity, like the Genevan
   republic, for example, under the reformation of Calvin, the discipline
   of the church would have rather gained than lost by the alliance. But
   the vast Roman state could not so easily and quickly lay aside its
   heathen traditions and customs; it perpetuated them under Christian
   names. The great mass of the people received, at best, only John's
   baptism of repentance, not Christ's baptism of the Holy Ghost and of
   fire.

   Yet even under these new conditions the original moral earnestness of
   the church continued, from time to time, to make itself known. Bishops
   were not wanting to confront even the emperors, as Nathan stood before
   David after his fall, in fearless rebuke. Chrysostom rigidly insisted,
   that the deacon should exclude all unworthy persons from the holy
   communion, though by his vehement reproof of the immoralities of the
   imperial court, he brought upon himself at last deposition and exile."
   Though a captain," says he to those who administer the communion, "or a
   governor, nay, even one adorned with the imperial crown, approach [the
   table of the Lord] unworthily, prevent him; you have greater authority
   than he .... Beware lest you excite the Lord to wrath, and give a sword
   instead of food. And if a new Judas should approach the communion,
   prevent him. Fear God, not man. If you fear man, he will treat you with
   scorn; if you fear God, you will appear venerable even to men." [657]
   Synesius excommunicated the worthless governor of Pentapolis,
   Andronicus, for his cruel oppression of the poor and contempt of the
   exhortations of the bishop, and the discipline attained the desired
   effect. The most noted example of church discipline is the encounter
   between Ambrose and Theodosius I. in Milan about the year 390. The
   bishop refused the powerful and orthodox emperor the communion, and
   thrust him back from the threshold of the church, because in a tempest
   of rage he had caused seven thousand persons in Thessalonica.,
   regardless of rank, sex, or guilt, to be hewn down by his soldiers in
   horrible cruelty on account of a riot. Eight months afterward Ambrose
   gave him absolution at his request, after he had submitted to the
   public penance of the church and promised in future not to execute a
   death penalty until thirty days after the pronouncing of it, that he
   might have time to revoke it if necessary, and to exercise mercy. [658]
   Here Ambrose certainly vindicated--though perhaps not without admixture
   of hierarchical loftiness--the dignity and rights of the church against
   the state, and the claims of Christian temperance and mercy against
   gross military power." Thus," says a modern historians "did the church
   prove, in a time of unlimited arbitrary power, the refuge of popular
   freedom, and saints assume the part of tribunes of the people." [659]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [653] Comp. § 27, above.

   [654] Rev. ii. 1-7. Comp. my Hist. of the Apostolic Church, p. 429.

   [655] Comp. vol. i. § 114 (p. 444 sq.).

   [656] Sozomen, vii. 16; Socrates, v. 19. This fact has been employed by
   the Roman church against the Protestant, in the controversy on the
   sacrament of penance. Nectarius certainly did abolish the institution
   of penitential priest, and the public church penance. But for or
   against private penances no inference can be drawn from the statement
   of these historians.

   [657] Hom. 82 (al. 83) in Matt., toward the close (in Montfaucon's
   edition of Chrys., tom. vii. p. 789 sq.). Comp. his exposition of 1Cor.
   xi. 27, 28, in Hom. 27 and 28, in 1Corinth. (English translation in the
   Oxford Library of the Fathers, etc., p. 379 sqq., and 383 sqq.).

   [658] This occurrence is related by Ambrosehimself, in 395, in his
   funeral discourse on Theodosius (de obitu Theod. c. 34, in the Bened.
   ed. of his works, tom. ii. p. 1207), in these words: "Deflevit in
   ecclesia publice peccatum suum, quod ei aliorum fraude obrepserat;
   gemitu et lacrymis oravit veniam. Quod privati erubescunt, non erubuit
   imperator, publice agere poenitentiam; neque ullus postea dies fuit quo
   non illum doleret errorem. Quid, quod praeclaram adeptus victoriam;
   tamen quia hostes in acie prostrati sunt abstinuit a consortio
   sacramentorum, donec Domini circa se gratiam filiorum experiretur
   adventu." Also by his biographer Paulinus (de vita Ambros. c. 24), by
   Augustine(De Civit. Dei, v. 26), by the historians Theodoret (v. 17),
   Sozomen (vii. 25), and Rufinus (xi. 18).

   [659] Hase, Church History, § 117 (p. 161, 7th ed.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 69. The Donatist Schism. External History.

   I. Sources. Augustine: Works against the Donatists (Contra epistolam
   Parmeniani, libri iii.; De baptismo, contra Donatistas, libri vii.;
   Contra literas Petiliani, libri iii.; De Unitate Ecclesiae, lib. unus;
   Contra Cresconium, grammaticum Donat., libri iv.; Breviculus
   Collationis cum Donatistis; Contra Gaudentium, etc.), in the 9th vol.
   of his Opera, ed. Bened. (Paris, 1688). Optatus Milevitanus (about
   370): De schismate Donatistarum. L. E. Du Pin: Monumenta vett. ad
   Donatist. Hist. pertinentia, Par. 1700. Excerpta et Scripta vetera ad
   Donatistarum Historiam pertinentia, at the close of the ninth volume of
   the Bened. ed. of Augustine's works.

   II. Literature. Valesius: De schism. Donat. (appended to his ed. of
   Eusebius). Walch: Historie der Ketzereien, etc., vol. iv. Neander:
   Allg. K. G. ii. 1, p. 366 sqq. (Torrey's Engl. translation, ii. p. 182
   sqq.). A. Roux: De Augustine adversario Donat. Lugd. Bat. 1838. F.
   Ribbeck: Donatus u. Augustinus, oder der erste entscheidende Kampf
   zwischen Separatismus u. Kirche., Elberf. 1858. (The author was for a
   short time a Baptist, and then returned to the Prussian established
   church, and wrote this work against separatism.)

   Donatism was by far the most important schism in the church of the
   period before us. For a whole century it divided the North African
   churches into two hostile camps. Like the schisms of the former period,
   [660] it arose from the conflict of the more rigid and the more
   indulgent theories of discipline in reference to the restoration of the
   lapsed. But through the intervention of the Christianized state, it
   assumed at the same time an ecclesiastico-political character. The
   rigoristic penitential discipline had been represented in the previous
   period especially by the Montanists and Novatians, who were still
   living; while the milder principle and practice had found its most
   powerful support in the Roman church, and, since the time of
   Constantine, had generally prevailed.

   The beginnings of the Donatist schism appear in the Dioclesian
   persecution, which revived that controversy concerning church
   discipline and martyrdom. The rigoristic party, favored by Secundus of
   Tigisis, at that time primate of Numidia, and led by the bishop Donatus
   of Casae Nigrae, rushed to the martyr's crown with fanatical contempt
   of death, and saw in flight from danger, or in the delivering up of the
   sacred books, only cowardice and treachery, which should forever
   exclude from the fellowship of the church. The moderate party, at whose
   head stood the bishop Mensurius and his archdeacon and successor
   Caecilian, advocated the claims of prudence and discretion, and cast
   suspicion on the motives of the forward confessors and martyrs. So
   early as the year 305 a schism was imminent, in the matter of an
   episcopal election for the city of Cita. But no formal outbreak
   occurred until after the cessation of the persecution in 311; and then
   the difficulty arose in connection with the hasty election of Caecilian
   to the bishopric of Carthage. The Donatists refused to acknowledge him,
   because in his ordination the Numidian bishops were slighted, and the
   service was performed by the bishop Felix of Aptungis, or Aptunga, whom
   they declared to be a traditor, that is, one who had delivered up the
   sacred writings to the heathen persecutors. In Carthage itself he had
   many opponents, among whom were the elders of the congregation
   (seniores plebis), and particularly a wealthy and superstitious widow,
   Lucilla, who was accustomed to kiss certain relics before her daily
   communion, and seemed to prefer them to the spiritual power of the
   sacrament. Secundus of Tigisis and seventy Numidian bishops, mostly of
   the rigoristic school, assembled at Carthage deposed and excommunicated
   Caecilian, who refused to appear, and elected the lector Majorinus, a
   favorite of Lucilla, in his place. After his death, in 315, Majorinus
   was succeeded by Donatus, a gifted man, of fiery energy and eloquence,
   revered by his admirers as a wonder worker, and styled The Great. From
   this man, and not from the Donatus mentioned above, the name of the
   party was derived. [661]

   Each party endeavored to gain churches abroad to its side, and thus the
   schism spread. The Donatists appealed to the emperor Constantine--the
   first instance of such appeal, and a step which they afterward had to
   repent. The emperor, who was at that time in Gaul, referred the matter
   to the Roman bishop Melchiades (Miltiades) and five Gallican bishops,
   before whom the accused Caecilian and ten African bishops from each
   side were directed to appear. The decision went in favor of Caecilian,
   and he was now, except in Africa, universally regarded as the
   legitimate bishop of Carthage. The Donatists remonstrated. A second
   investigation, which Constantine intrusted to the council of Arles
   (Arelate) in 314, led to the same result. When the Donatists hereupon
   appealed from this ecclesiastical tribunal to the judgment of the
   emperor himself, he likewise declared against them at Milan in 316, and
   soon afterward issued penal laws against them, threatening them with
   the banishment of their bishops and the confiscation of their churches.

   Persecution made them enemies of the state whose help they had invoked,
   and fed the flame of their fanaticism. They made violent resistance to
   the imperial commissioner, Ursacius, and declared that no power on
   earth could induce them to hold church fellowship with the "rascal"
   (nebulo) Caecilian. Constantine perceived the fruitlessness of the
   forcible restriction of religion, and, by an edict in 321, granted the
   Donatists full liberty of faith and worship. He remained faithful to
   this policy of toleration, and exhorted the Catholics to patience and
   indulgence. At a council in 330 the Donatists numbered two hundred and
   seventy bishops.

   Constans, the successor of Constantine, resorted again to violent
   measures; but neither threats nor promises made any impression on the
   party. It came to blood. The Circumcellions, a sort of Donatist
   mendicant monks, who wandered about the country among the cottages of
   the peasantry, [662] carried on plunder, arson, and murder, in
   conjunction with mutinous peasants and slaves, and in crazy zeal for
   the martyr's crown, as genuine soldiers of Christ, rushed into fire and
   water, and threw themselves down from rocks. Yet there were Donatists
   who disapproved this revolutionary frenzy. The insurrection was
   suppressed by military force; several leaders of the Donatists were
   executed, others were banished, and their churches were closed or
   confiscated. Donatus the Great died in exile. He was succeeded by one
   Parmenianus.

   Under Julian the Apostate the Donatists again obtained, with all other
   heretics and schismatics, freedom of religion, and returned to the
   possession of their churches, which they painted anew, to redeem them
   from their profanation by the Catholics. But under the subsequent
   emperors their condition grew worse, both from persecutions without and
   dissensions within. The quarrel between the two parties extended into
   all the affairs of daily life; the Donatist bishop Faustinus of Hippo,
   for example, allowing none of the members of his church to bake bread
   for the Catholic inhabitants.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [660] Comp. vol. i. § 115, p. 447 sqq.

   [661] "Pars Donati, Donatistae, Donatiani." Previously they were
   commonly called "Pars Majorini." Optatus of Mileve seems, indeed, to
   know of only one Donatus. But the Donatists expressly distinguish
   Donatus Magnus of Carthage from Donatus a Casis Nigris. Likewise
   Augustine, Contra Cresconium Donat, ii. 1; though he himself had
   formerly confounded the two.

   [662] "Cellas circumientes rusticorum." Hence the name Circumcelliones.
   But they called themselves Milites Christi Agonistici. Their date and
   origin are uncertain. According to Optatus of Mileve, they first
   appeared under Constans, in 347.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 70. Augustine and the Donatists. Their Persecution and Extinction.

   At the end of the fourth century, and in the beginning of the fifth,
   the great Augustine, of Hippo, where there was also a strong
   congregation of the schismatics, made a powerful effort, by instruction
   and persuasion, to reconcile the Donatists with the Catholic church. He
   wrote several works on the subject, and set the whole African church in
   motion against them. They feared his superior dialectics, and avoided
   him wherever they could. The matter, however, was brought, by order of
   the emperor in 411, to a three days' arbitration at Carthage, attended
   by two hundred and eighty-six Catholic bishops and two hundred and
   seventy-nine Donatist. [663]

   Augustine, who, in two beautiful sermons before the beginning of the
   disputation, exhorted to love, forbearance and meekness, was the chief
   speaker on the part of the Catholics Petilian, on the part of the
   schismatics. Marcellinus, the imperial tribune and notary, and a friend
   of Augustine, presided, and was to pass the decisive judgment. This
   arrangement was obviously partial, and secured the triumph of the
   Catholics. The discussions related to two points: (1) Whether the
   Catholic bishops Caecilian and Felix of Aptunga were traditors; (2)
   Whether the church lose her nature and attributes by fellowship with
   heinous sinners. The balance of skill and argument was on the side of
   Augustine, though the Donatists brought much that was forcible against
   compulsion in religion, and against the confusion of the temporal and
   the spiritual powers. The imperial commissioner, as might be expected,
   decided in favor of the Catholics. The separatists nevertheless
   persisted in their view, but their appeal to the emperor continued
   unsuccessful.

   More stringent civil laws were now enacted against them, banishing the
   Donatist clergy from their country, imposing fines on the laity, and
   confiscating the churches. In 415 they were even forbidden to hold
   religious assemblies, upon pain of death.

   Augustine himself, who had previously consented only to spiritual
   measures against heretics, now advocated force, to bring them into the
   fellowship of the church, out of which there was no salvation. He
   appealed to the command in the parable of the supper, Luke, xiv. 23, to
   "compel them to come in;" where, however, the "compel" (anankason) is
   evidently but a vivid hyperbole for the holy zeal in the conversion of
   the heathen, which we find, for example, in the apostle Paul. [664]

   New eruptions of fanaticism ensued. A bishop Gaudentius threatened,
   that if the attempt were made to deprive him of his church by force,
   he, would burn himself with his congregation in it, and vindicated this
   intended suicide by the example of Rhazis, in the second book of
   Maccabees (ch. xiv.).

   The conquest of Africa by the Arian Vandals in 428 devastated the
   African church, and put an end to the controversy, as the French
   Revolution swept both Jesuitism and Jansenism away. Yet a remnant of
   the Donatists, as we learn from the letters of Gregory I., perpetuated
   itself into the seventh century, still proving in their ruins the power
   of a mistaken puritanic zeal and the responsibility and guilt of
   state-church persecution. In the seventh century the entire African
   church sank under the Saracenic conquest.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [663] Augustinegives an account of the debate in his Breviculus
   Collationis cum Donatists (Opera, tom. ix. p. 545-580).

   [664] On Augustine's view Comp. § 27, toward the close.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 71. Internal History of the Donatist Schism. Dogma of the Church.

   The Donatist controversy was a conflict between separatism and
   catholicism; between ecclesiastical purism and ecclesiastical
   eclecticism; between the idea of the church as an exclusive community
   of regenerate saints and the idea of the church as the general
   Christendom of state and people. It revolved around the doctrine of the
   essence of the Christian church, and, in particular, of the predicate
   of holiness. It resulted in the completion by Augustine of the catholic
   dogma of the church, which had been partly developed by Cyprian in his
   conflict with a similar schism. [665]

   The Donatists, like Tertullian in his Montanistic writings, started
   from an ideal and spiritualistic conception of the church as a
   fellowship of saints, which in a sinful world could only be imperfectly
   realized. They laid chief stress on the predicate of the subjective
   holiness or personal worthiness of the several members, and made the
   catholicity of the church and the efficacy of the sacraments dependent
   upon that. The true church, therefore, is not so much a school of
   holiness, as a society of those who are already holy; or at least of
   those who appear so; for that there are hypocrites not even the
   Donatists could deny, and as little could they in earnest claim
   infallibility in their own discernment of men. By the toleration of
   those who are openly sinful, the church loses, her holiness, and ceases
   to be church. Unholy priests are incapable of administering sacraments;
   for how can regeneration proceed from the unregenerate, holiness from
   the unholy? No one can give what he does not himself possess. He who
   would receive faith from a faithless man, receives not faith but guilt.
   [666] It was on this ground, in fact, that they rejected the election
   of Caecilian: that he had been ordained bishop by an unworthy person.
   On this ground they refused to recognize the Catholic baptism as
   baptism at all. On this point they had some support in Cyprian, who
   likewise rejected the validity of heretical baptism, though not from
   the separatist, but from the catholic point of view, and who came into
   collision, upon this question, with Stephen of Rome. [667]

   Hence, like the Montanists and Novatians, they insisted on rigorous
   church discipline, and demanded the excommunication of all unworthy
   members, especially of such as had denied their faith or given up the
   Holy Scriptures under persecution. They resisted, moreover, all
   interference of the civil power in church affairs; though they
   themselves at first had solicited the help of Constantine. In the great
   imperial church, embracing the people in a mass, they saw a secularized
   Babylon, against which they set themselves off, in separatistic
   arrogance, as the only true and pure church. In support of their views,
   they appealed to the passages of the Old Testament, which speak of the
   external holiness of the people of God, and to the procedure of Paul
   with respect to the fornicator at Corinth.

   In opposition to this subjective and spiritualistic theory of the
   church, Augustine, as champion of the Catholics, developed the
   objective, realistic theory, which has since been repeatedly
   reasserted, though with various modifications, not only in the Roman
   church, but also in the Protestant, against separatistic and schismatic
   sects. He lays chief stress on the catholicity of the church, and
   derives the holiness of individual members and the validity of
   ecclesiastical functions from it. He finds the essence of the church,
   not in the personal character of the several Christians, but in the
   union of the whole church with Christ. Taking the historical point of
   view, he goes back to the founding of the church, which may be seen in
   the New Testament, which has spread over all the world, and which is
   connected through the unbroken succession of bishops with the apostles
   and with Christ. This alone can be the true church. It is impossible
   that she should all at once disappear from the earth, or should exist
   only in the African sect of the Donatists. [668] What is all that they
   may say of their little heap, in comparison with the great catholic
   Christendom of all lands? Thus even numerical preponderance here enters
   as an argument; though under other circumstances it may prove too much,
   and would place the primitive church at a clear disadvantage in
   comparison with the prevailing Jewish and heathen masses, and the
   Evangelical church in its controversy with the Roman Catholic.

   From the objective character of the church as a divine institution
   flows, according to the catholic view, the efficacy of all her
   functions, the Sacraments in particular. When Petilian, at the Collatio
   cum Donatistis, said: "He who receives the faith from a faithless
   priest, receives not faith, but guilt," Augustine answered: "But Christ
   is not unfaithful (perfidus), from whom I receive faith (fidem), not
   guilt (reatum). Christ, therefore, is properly the functionary, and the
   priest is simply his organ." "My origin," said Augustine on the same
   occasion, "is Christ, my root is Christ, my head is Christ. The seed,
   of which I was born, is the word of God, which I must obey even though
   the preacher himself practise not what he preaches. I believe not in
   the minister by whom I am baptized, but in Christ, who alone justifies
   the sinner and can forgive guilt." [669]

   Lastly, in regard to church discipline, the opponents of the Donatists
   agreed with them in considering it wholesome and necessary, but would
   keep it within the limits fixed for it by the circumstances of the time
   and the fallibility of men. A perfect separation of sinners from saints
   is impracticable before the final judgment. Many things must be
   patiently borne, that greater evil may be averted, and that those still
   capable of improvement may be improved, especially where the offender
   has too many adherents." Man," says Augustine, "should punish in the
   spirit of love, until either the discipline and correction come from
   above, or the tares are pulled up in the universal harvest." [670] In
   support of this view appeal was made to the Lord's parables of the
   tares among the wheat, and of the net which gathered together of every
   kind (Matt. xiii.). These two parables were the chief exegetical battle
   ground of the two parties. The Donatists understood by the field, not
   the church, but the world, according to the Saviour's own exposition of
   the parable of the tares; [671] the Catholics replied that it was the
   kingdom of heaven or the church to which the parable referred as a
   whole, and pressed especially the warning of the Saviour not to gather
   up the tares before the final harvest, lest they root up also the wheat
   with them. The Donatists, moreover, made a distinction between unknown
   offenders, to whom alone the parable of the net referred, and notorious
   sinners. But this did not gain them much; for if the church compromises
   her character for holiness by contact with unworthy persons at all, it
   matters not whether they be openly unworthy before men or not, and no
   church whatever would be left on earth.

   On the other hand, however, Augustine, who, no more than the Donatists,
   could relinquish the predicate of holiness for the church, found
   himself compelled to distinguish between a true and a mixed, or merely
   apparent body of Christ; forasmuch as hypocrites, even in this world,
   are not in and with Christ, but only appear to be. [672] And yet he
   repelled the Donatist charge of making two churches. In his view it is
   one and the same church, which is now mixed with the ungodly, and will
   hereafter be pure, as it is the same Christ who once died, and now
   lives forever, and the same believers, who are now mortal and will one
   day put on immortality'. [673]

   With some modification we may find here the germ of the subsequent
   Protestant distinction of the visible and invisible church; which
   regards the invisible, not as another church, but as the ecclesiola in
   ecclesia (or ecclesiis), as the smaller communion of true believers
   among professors, and thus as the true substance of the visible church,
   and as contained within its limits, like the soul in the body, or the
   kernel in the shell. Here the moderate Donatist and scholarly
   theologian, Tychoius, [674] approached Augustine; calling the church a
   twofold body of Christ, [675] of which the one part embraces the true
   Christians, the other the apparent. [676] In this, as also in
   acknowledging the validity of the Catholic baptism, Tychonius departed
   from the Donatists; while he adhered to their views on discipline and
   opposed the Catholic mixture of the church and the world. But neither
   he nor Augustine pursued this distinction to any clearer development.
   Both were involved, at bottom, in the confusion of Christianity with
   the church, and of the church with a particular outward organization.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [665] Comp. vol. i § 111, 115, and 131.

   [666] Aug. Contra literas Petil. l. i. cap. 5 (tom. ix. p. 208): "Qui
   fidem a perfido sumserit, non fidem percipit, sed reatum; omnis enim
   res origine et radice consistit, et si caput non habet aliquid, nihil
   est."

   [667] Comp. vol. i. § 104, p. 404 sqq.

   [668] Augustine, ad Catholicos Epistola contra Donatistas, usually
   quoted under the shorter title, De unitate Ecclesiae, c. 12 (Bened. ed.
   tom. ix. p. 360): "Quomodo coeptum sit ab Jerusalem, et deinde
   processum in Judaeam et Samariam, et inde in totam terram, ubi adhuc
   crescit ecclesia, donec usque in finem etiam reliquas gentes, ubi adhuc
   non est, obtineat, scripturis sanctis testibus consequenter ostenditur;
   quisquis aliud evangelizaverit, anathema sit. Aliud autem evangelizat,
   qui periisse dicit de caetero mundo ecclesiam et in parte Donati in
   sola Africa remansisse dicit. Ergo anathema sit. Aut legat mihi hoc in
   scripturis sanctis, et non sit anathema."

   [669] Contra literas Petiliani, l. i. c. 7 (Opera, tom. ix. p. 209):
   "Origo mea Christus est, radix mea Christus est, caput meum Christus
   est." ... In the same place: "Me innocentem non facit, nisi qui mortuus
   est propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter justificationem
   nostram. Non enim in ministrum, per quem baptizor, credo; sed in cum
   qui justificat impium, ut deputetur mihi fides in justitiam."

   [670] Aug. Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, l. iii. c. 2, § 10-15 (Opera,
   tom. ix. p. 62-66).

   [671] Breviculus Collat. c. Don. Dies tert. c. 8, § 10 (Opera, ix. p.
   559): "Zizania inter triticum non in ecclesia, sed in ipso mundo
   permixta dixerunt, quoniam Dominus ait, Ager est mundus" (Matt. xiii.
   38). As to the exegetical merits of the controversy see Trench's "Notes
   on the Parables," p. 83 sqq. (9th Lond. edition, 1863), and Lange's
   Commentary on Matt. xiii. (Amer. ed. by Schaff, p. 244 sqq.).

   [672] Corpus Christi verum atque permixtum, or verum atque simulatum.
   Comp. De doctr. Christ. iii. 32, as quoted below in full.

   [673] Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis, Dies tertius, cap. 10, §
   19 and 20 (Opera, ix. 564): "Deinde calumniantes, quod duas ecclesias
   Catholici dixerint, unam quae nunc habet permixtos malos, aliam quae
   post resurrectionem eos non esset habitura: veluti non iidem futuri
   essent sancti cum Christo regnaturi, qui nunc pro ejus nomine cum juste
   vivunt tolerant malos .... De duabus etiam ecclesiis calumniam eorum
   Catholici refutarunt, identidem expressius ostendentes, quid dixerint,
   id est, non eam ecclesiam, quos nunc habet permixtos malos, alienam se
   dixisse a regno Dei, ubi non erunt mali commixti, sed eandem ipsam unam
   et sanctam ecclesiam nunc esse aliter tunc autem aliter futuram, nunc
   habere malos mixtos, tunc non habituram ... sicut non ideo duo Christi,
   quia prior mortuus postea non moriturus."

   [674] Or Tichonius, as Augustinespells the name. Although himself a
   Donatist, he wrote against them, "qui contra Donatistas invictissime
   scripsit, cum fuerit Donatista" (says Aug. De doctr. Christ. l. iii. c.
   30, § 42). He was opposed to rebaptism and acknowledged the validity of
   the Catholic sacraments; but he was equally opposed to the secularism
   of the Catholic church and its mixture with the state, and adhered to
   the strict discipline of the Donatists. Of his works only one remains,
   viz., Liber regularum, or de septem regulis, a sort of Biblical
   hermeneutics, or a guide for the proper understanding of the mysteries
   of the Bible. It was edited by Gallandi, in his Bibliotheca Veterum
   Patrum, tom. viii. p. 107-129. Augustinenotices these rules at length
   in his work De doctrina Christiana, lib. iii. c. 30 sqq. (Opera, ed.
   Bened. tom. iii. p. 57 sqq.). Tychonius seems to have died before the
   close of the fourth century. Comp. on him Tillemont, Memoires, tom. vi.
   p. 81 sq., and an article of A. Vogel, in Herzog's Real-Encyclopaedie,
   vol. xvi. p. 534-536.

   [675] "Corpus Domini bipartitum." This was the second of his rules for
   the true understanding of the Scriptures.

   [676] Augustineobjects only to his mode of expression, De doctr.
   Christ. iii. 32 (tom. iii. 58): "Secunda [regula Tichonii] est de
   Domini corpore bipartito; non enim revera Domini corpus est, quod cum
   illo non erit in aeternum; sed dicendum fuit de Domini corpore vero
   atque permixto, aut vero atque simulato, vel quid aliud; quia non solum
   in aeternum, verum etiam nunc hypocrites non cum illo esse dicendi
   sunt, quamvis in ejus esse videantur ecclesia, unde poterat ista regula
   et sic appellari, ut diceretur de permixta ecclesia." Comp. also Dr.
   Baur, K. G. vom 4-6 Jahrh., p. 224.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 72. The Roman Schism of Damasus and Ursinus.

   Rufinus: Hist. Eccl. ii. 10. Hieronymus: Chron. ad ann. 366. Socrates:
   H. E. iv. 29 (all in favor of Damasus). Faustinus et Marcellinus (two
   presbyters of Ursinus): Libellus precum ad Imper. Theodos. in Bibl.
   Patr. Lugd. v. 637 (in favor of Ursinus). With these Christian accounts
   of the Roman schism may be compared the impartial statement of the
   heathen historian Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii. c. 3, ad ann. 367.

   The church schism between Damasus and Ursinus (or Ursicinus) in Rome,
   had nothing to do with the question of discipline, but proceeded partly
   from the Arian controversy, partly from personal ambition. [677] For
   such were the power and splendor of the court of the successor of the
   Galilean fisherman, even at that time, that the distinguished pagan
   senator, Praetextatus, said to Pope Damasus: "Make me a bishop of Rome,
   and I will be a Christian to-morrow." [678] The schism presents a
   mournful example of the violent character of the episcopal elections at
   Rome. These elections were as important events for the Romans as the
   elections of the emperors by the Praetorian soldiers had formerly been.
   They enlisted and aroused all the passions of the clergy and the
   people.

   The schism originated in the deposition and banishment of the bishop
   Tiberius, for his orthodoxy, and the election of the Arian Felix [679]
   as pope in opposition by the arbitrary will of the emperor Constantius
   (a.d. 355). Liberius, having in his exile subscribed the Arian creed of
   Sirmium, [680] was in 358 reinstated, and Felix retired, and is said to
   have subsequently repented his defection to Arianism. The parties,
   however, continued.

   After the death of Liberius in 366, Damasus was, by the party of Felix,
   and Ursinus by the party of Liberius, elected successor of Peter. It
   came to repeated bloody encounters; even the altar of the Prince of
   Peace was desecrated, and in a church whither Ursinus had betaken
   himself, a hundred and thirty-seven men lost their lives in one day.
   [681] Other provinces also were drawn into the quarrel. It was years
   before Damasus at last, with the aid of the, emperor, obtained
   undisputed possession of his office, and Ursinus was banished. The
   statements of the two parties are so conflicting in regard to the
   priority and legitimacy of election in the two cases, and the
   authorship of the bloody scenes, that we cannot further determine on
   which side lay the greater blame. Damasus, who reigned from 367 to 384)
   is indeed depicted as in other respects a violent man, [682] but he was
   a man of learning and literary taste, and did good service by his
   patronage of Jerome's Latin version of the Bible, and by the
   introduction of the Latin Psalter into the church song. [683]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [677] Ammianus Marc., l.c., intimates the latter: "Damasus et Ursinus
   supra humanum modum ad rapiendam episcopatus sedem ardentes scissis
   studiis asperrimo conflictabantur," etc.

   [678] This is related even by St. Jerome(Comp. above § 53, p. 267,
   note), and goes to confirm the statements of Ammianus.

   [679] Athanasius (Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, § 75, Opera ed.
   Bened. i. p. 389), and Socrates (H. E. ii. 37), decidedly condemn him
   as an Arian. Nevertheless this heretic and anti-pope has been smuggled
   into the Roman catalogue of saints and martyrs. Gregory XIII instituted
   an investigation into the matter, which was terminated by the sudden
   discovery of his remains, with the inscription: "Pope and Martyr."

   [680] According to Baronius, ad a. 357, the jealousy of Felix was the
   Delilah, who robbed the catholic Samson (Liberius) of his strength.

   [681] Ammian. Marc. l. xxvii. c. 3: "Constat in basilica Sicinini
   (Sicinii), ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, uno die cxxxvii.
   reperta cadavera peremtorum." Then he speaks of the pomp and luxury of
   the Roman bishopric, on account of which it was the object of so
   passionate covetousness and ambition, and contrasts with it the
   simplicity and self-denial of the rural clergy. The account is
   confirmed by Augustine, Brevic. Coll.c. Donat. c. 16, and Hieron. in
   Chron. an. 367. Socrates, iv. 29, speaks generally of several fights,
   in which many lives were lost.

   [682] His opponents also charged him with too great familiarity with
   Roman ladies. The same accusation, however, was made against his friend
   Jerome, on account of his zeal for the spread of the ascetic life among
   the Roman matrons.

   [683] Comp. on Damasus his works, edited by Merenda, Rome, 1754,
   several epistles of Jerome, Tillemont, tom. viii. 386, and Butler's
   Lives of the Saints, sub Dec. 11th.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 73. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.

   Hieronymus: Chron. ad ann. 864. Chrysostomus: Homilia in S. Patrem
   nostrum Meletium, archiepiscopum magnae Antiochiae (delivered a.d. 386
   or 387, in Montfaucon's ed. of Chrysost. Opera, tom. ii. p. 518-523).
   Sozomen: H. E. iv. 28; vii. 10, 11. Theodor.: H. E. V. 3, 35. Socrates:
   H. E. iii. 9; v. 9, 17. Comp. Walch: Ketzerhistorie, part iv. p. 410
   sqq.

   The Meletian schism at Antioch [684] was interwoven with the Arian
   controversies, and lasted through more than half a century.

   In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop
   Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this
   party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy. He was a
   man of rich persuasive eloquence, and of a sweet and amiable
   disposition, which endeared him to the Catholics and Arians. But his
   doctrinal indecision offended the extremists of both parties. When he
   professed the Nicene faith, the Arians deposed him in council, sent him
   into exile, and transferred his bishopric to Euzoius, who had formerly
   been banished with Arius. [685] The Catholics disowned Euzoius, but
   split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius,
   while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been
   known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated, would
   not recognize a bishop of Arian consecration, though Catholic in
   belief, and elected Paulinus, a presbyter of high character, who was
   ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris. [686]

   The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes
   consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three
   hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the
   one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the
   other on its unity.

   The orthodox orientals declared for Meletius, the occidentals and
   Egyptians for Paulinus, as legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius, on
   returning from exile under the protection of Gratian, proposed to
   Paulinus that they should unite their flocks, and that the survivor of
   them should superintend the church alone; but Paulinus declined, since
   the canons forbade him to take as a colleague one who had been ordained
   by Arians. [687] Then the military authorities put Meletius in
   possession of the cathedral, which had been in the hands of Euzoius.
   Meletius presided, as senior bishop, in the second ecumenical council
   (381), but died a few days after the opening of it--a saint outside the
   communion of Rome. His funeral was imposing: lights were borne before
   the embalmed corpse, and psalms sung in divers languages, and these
   honors were repeated in all the cities through which it passed on its
   transportation to Antioch, beside the grave of St. Babylas. [688] The
   Antiochians engraved his likeness on their rings, their cups, and the
   walls of their bedrooms. So St. Chrysostom informs us in his eloquent
   eulogy on Meletius. [689] Flavian was elected his successor, although
   Paulinus was still alive. This gave rise to fresh troubles, and excited
   the indignation of the bishop of Rome. Chrysostom labored for the
   reconciliation of Rome and Alexandria to Flavian. But the party of
   Paulinus, after his death in 389, elected Evarius as successor ( 392),
   and the schism continued down to the year 413 or 415, when the bishop
   Alexander succeeded in reconciling the old orthodox remnant with the
   successor of Meletius. The two parties celebrated their union by a
   splendid festival, and proceeded together in one majestic stream to the
   church. [690]

   Thus a long and tedious schism was brought to a close, and the church
   of Antioch was permitted at last to enjoy that peace which the
   Athanasian synod of Alexandria in 362 had desired for it in vain. [691]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [684] Not to be confounded with the Meletian schism at Alexandria,
   which arose in the previous period. Comp. vol. i. § 115 (p. 451).

   [685] Sozom. H. E. iv. c. 28..

   [686] This Lucifer was an orthodox fanatic, who afterward himself fell
   into conflict with Athanasius in Alexandria, and formed a sect of his
   own, the Luciferians, On rigid principles of church purity. Comp. Socr.
   iii. 9; Sozom. iii. 15; and Walch, Ketzerhist. iii. 338 sqq

   [687] Theodoret, H. E. lib. iii. 3. He highly applauds the magnanimous
   proposal of Meletius.

   [688] Sozom. vii. c. 10. The historian says that the singing of psalms
   on such occasions was quite contrary to Roman custom.

   [689] Chrysostomsays in the beginning of this oration, that five years
   had elapsed since Meletius had gone to Jesus. He died in 381,
   consequently the oration must have been pronounced in 386 or 387.

   [690] Theodoret, H. E. l. v. c. 35. Dr. J. R. Kurtz, in his large work
   on Church History (Handbuch der Kirchengesch. vol. i. part ii. § 181,
   p. 129) erroneously speaks of a resignation of Alexander, by which he,
   from love of peace, induced his congregation to acknowledge the
   Meletian bishop Flavian. But Flavian had died several years before (in
   404), and Alexander was himself the second successor of Flavian, the
   profligate Porphyrius intervening. Theodoret knows nothing of a
   resignation. Kurtz must be used with considerable caution, as he is
   frequently inaccurate, and relies too much on secondary authorities.

   [691] See the Epist. Synodica Conc. Alex. in Mansi's Councils, tom.
   iii. p. 345 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER VII.

   PUBLIC WORSHIP AND RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS AND CEREMONIES.

   I. The ancient Liturgies; the Acts of Councils; and the ecclesiastical
   writers of the period.

   II. The archaeological and liturgical works of Martene, Mamachi, Bona,
   Muratori, Pelicia, Asseman, Renaudot, Binterim, and Staudenmeier, of
   the Roman Catholic church; and Bingham, Augusti, Siegel, Alt, Piper,
   Neale, and Daniel, of the Protestant.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 74. The Revolution in Cultus.

   The change in the legal and social position of Christianity with
   reference to the temporal power, produced a mighty effect upon its
   cultus. Hitherto the Christian worship had been confined to a
   comparatively small number of upright confessors, most of whom belonged
   to the poorer classes of society. Now it came forth from its secrecy in
   private houses, deserts, and catacombs, to the light of day, and must
   adapt itself to the higher classes and to the great mass of the people,
   who had been bred in the traditions of heathenism. The development of
   the hierarchy and the enrichment of public worship go hand in hand. A
   republican and democratic constitution demands simple manners and
   customs; aristocracy and monarchy surround themselves with a formal
   etiquette and a brilliant court-life. The universal priesthood is
   closely connected with a simple cultus; the episcopal hierarchy, with a
   rich, imposing ceremonial.

   In the Nicene age the church laid aside her lowly servant-form, and put
   on a splendid imperial garb. She exchanged the primitive simplicity of
   her cultus for a richly colored multiplicity. She drew all the fine
   arts into the service of the sanctuary, and began her sublime creations
   of Christian architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry, and music. In
   place of the pagan temple and altar arose everywhere the stately church
   and the chapel in honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of martyrs and
   saints. The kindred ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar became
   more fully developed and more firmly fixed, as the outward hierarchy
   grew. The mass, or daily repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ
   by the hand of the priest, became the mysterious centre of the whole
   system of worship. The number of church festivals was increased;
   processions, and pilgrimages, and a multitude of significant and
   superstitious customs and ceremonies were introduced. The public
   worship of God assumed, if we may so speak, a dramatic, theatrical
   character, which made it attractive and imposing to the mass of the
   people, who were as yet incapable, for the most part, of worshipping
   God in spirit and in truth. It was addressed rather to the eye and the
   ear, to feeling and imagination, than to intelligence and will. In
   short, we already find in the Nicene age almost all the essential
   features of the sacerdotal, mysterious, ceremonial, symbolical cultus
   of the Greek and Roman churches of the present day.

   This enrichment and embellishment of the cultus was, on one hand, a
   real advance, and unquestionably had a disciplinary and educational
   power, like the hierarchical organization, for the training of the
   popular masses. But the gain in outward appearance and splendor was
   balanced by many a loss in simplicity and spirituality. While the
   senses and the imagination were entertained and charmed, the heart not
   rarely returned cold and hungry. Not a few pagan habits and ceremonies,
   concealed under new names, crept into the church, or were baptized only
   with water, not with the fire and Spirit of the gospel. It is well
   known with what peculiar tenacity a people cleave to religious usages;
   and it could not be expected that they should break off in an instant
   from the traditions of centuries. Nor, in fact, are things which may
   have descended from heathenism, to be by any means sweepingly
   condemned. Both the Jewish cultus and the heathen are based upon those
   universal religious wants which Christianity must satisfy, and which
   Christianity alone can truly meet. Finally, the church has adopted
   hardly a single existing form or ceremony of religion, without at the
   same time breathing into it a new spirit, and investing it with a high
   moral import. But the limit of such appropriation it is very hard to
   fix, and the old nature of Judaism and heathenism which has its point
   of attachment in the natural heart of man, continually betrayed its
   tenacious presence. This is conceded and lamented by the most earnest
   of the church fathers of the Nicene and post-Nicene age, the very
   persons who are in other respects most deeply involved in the Catholic
   ideas of cultus.

   In the Christian martyr-worship and saint-worship, which now spread
   with giant strides over the whole Christian world, we cannot possibly
   mistake the succession of the pagan worship of gods and heroes, with
   its noisy popular festivities. Augustine puts into the mouth of a
   heathen the question: "Wherefore must we forsake gods, which the
   Christians themselves worship with us?" He deplores the frequent revels
   and amusements at the tombs of the martyrs; though he thinks that
   allowance should be made for these weaknesses out of regard to the
   ancient custom. Leo the Great speaks of Christians in Rome who first
   worshipped the rising sun, doing homage to the pagan Apollo, before
   repairing to the basilica of St. Peter. Theodoret defends the Christian
   practices at the graves of the martyrs by pointing to the pagan
   libations, propitiations, gods, and demigods. Since Hercules,
   Aesculapitis, Bacchus, the Dioscuri, and many other objects of pagan
   worship were mere deified men, the Christians, he thinks, cannot be
   blamed for honoring their martyrs--not making them gods but venerating
   them as witnesses and servants of the only, true God. Chrysostom mourns
   over the theatrical customs, such as loud clapping in applause, which
   the Christians at Antioch and Constantinople brought with them into the
   church. In the Christmas festival, which from the fourth century spread
   from Rome over the entire church, the holy commemoration of the birth
   of the Redeemer is associated--to this day, even in Protestant
   lands--with the wanton merriments of the pagan Saturnalia. And even in
   the celebration of Sunday, as it was introduced by Constantine, and
   still continues on the whole continent of Europe, the cultus of the old
   sun-god Apollo mingles, with the remembrance of the resurrection of
   Christ; and the widespread profanation of the Lord's Day, especially on
   the continent of Europe, demonstrates the great influence which
   heathenism still exerts upon Roman and Greek Catholic, and even upon
   Protestant, Christendom.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 75. The Civil and Religious Sunday.

   Geo. Holden: The Christian Sabbath. Lond. 1825 (see ch. v.). John T.
   Baylee: History of the Sabbath. Lond. 1857 (see chs. x.-xiii.). James
   Aug. Hessey: Sunday, its Origin, History, and present Obligation;
   Bampton Lectures preached before the University of Oxford. Lond. 1860
   (Patristic and high-Anglican). James Gilfillan: The Sabbath viewed in
   the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History, with Sketches of its
   Literature. Edinb. and New York, 1862 (The Puritan and Anglo-American
   view). Robert Cox: The Literature on the Sabbath Question. Edinb. 1865,
   2 vols. (Latitudinarian, but very full and learned).

   The observance of Sunday originated in the time of the apostles, and
   ever since forms the basis of public worship, with its ennobling,
   sanctifying, and cheering influences, in all Christian lands.

   The Christian Sabbath is, on the one hand, the continuation and the
   regeneration of the Jewish Sabbath, based upon God's resting from the
   creation and upon the fourth commandment of the decalogue, which, as to
   its substance, is not of merely national application, like the
   ceremonial and civil law, but of universal import and perpetual
   validity for mankind. It is, on the other hand, a new creation of the
   gospel, a memorial of the resurrection of Christ and of the work of
   redemption completed and divinely sealed thereby. It rests, we may say,
   upon the threefold basis of the original creation, the Jewish
   legislation, and the Christian redemption, and is rooted in the
   physical, the moral, and the religious wants of our nature. It has a
   legal and an evangelical aspect. Like the law in general, the
   institution of the Christian Sabbath is a wholesome restraint upon the
   people, and a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ. But it is also
   strictly evangelical: it was originally made for the benefit of man,
   like the family, with which it goes back beyond the fall to the
   paradise of innocence, as the second institution of God on earth; it
   was "a delight" to the pious of the old dispensation (Isa. lviii. 13),
   and now, under the new, it is fraught with the glorious memories and
   blessings of Christ's resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy
   Spirit. The Christian Sabbath is the ancient Sabbath baptized with fire
   and the Holy Ghost, regenerated, spiritualized, and glorified. It is
   the connecting link of creation and redemption, of paradise lost, and
   paradise regained, and a pledge and preparation for the saints'
   everlasting rest in heaven. [692]

   The ancient church viewed the Sunday mainly, we may say, one-sidedly
   and exclusively, from its Christian aspect as a new institution, and
   not in any way as a continuation of the Jewish Sabbath. It observed it
   as the day of the commemoration of the resurrection or of the now
   spiritual creation, and hence as a day of sacred joy and thanksgiving,
   standing in bold contrast to the days of humiliation and fasting, as
   the Easter festival contrasts with Good Friday.

   So long as Christianity was not recognized and protected by the state,
   the observance of Sunday was purely religious, a strictly voluntary
   service, but exposed to continual interruption from the bustle of the
   world and a hostile community. The pagan Romans paid no more regard to
   the Christian Sunday than to the Jewish Sabbath.

   In this matter, as in others, the accession of Constantine marks the
   beginning of a new era, and did good service to the church and to the
   cause of public order and morality. Constantine is the founder, in part
   at least, of the civil observance of Sunday, by which alone the
   religious observance of it in the church could be made universal and
   could be properly secured. In the year 321 he issued a law prohibiting
   manual labor in the cities and all judicial transactions, at a later
   period also military exercises, on Sunday. [693] He exempted the
   liberation of slaves, which as an act of Christian humanity and
   charity, might, with special propriety, take place on that day. [694]
   But the Sunday law of Constantine must not be overrated. He enjoined
   the observance, or rather forbade the public desecration of Sunday, not
   under the name of Sabbatum or Dies Domini, but under its old
   astrological and heathen title, Dies Solis, familiar to all his
   subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshippers of
   Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians. There is no
   reference whatever in his law either to the fourth commandment or to
   the resurrection of Christ. Besides he expressly exempted the country
   districts, where paganism still prevailed, from the prohibition of
   labor, and thus avoided every appearance of injustice. Christians and
   pagans had been accustomed to festival rests. Constantine made these
   rests to synchronize, and gave the preference to Sunday, on which day
   Christians from the beginning celebrated the resurrection of their Lord
   and Saviour. This and no more was implied in the famous enactment of
   321. It was only a step in the right direction, but probably the only
   one which Constantine could prudently or safely take at that period of
   transition from the rule of paganism to that of Christianity.

   For the army, however, he went beyond the limits of negative and
   protective legislation, to which the state ought to confine itself in
   matters of religion, and enjoined a certain positive observance of
   Sunday, in requiring the Christian soldiers to attend Christian
   worship, and the heathen soldiers, in the open field, at a given
   signal, with eyes and hands raised towards heaven, to recite the
   following, certainly very indefinite, form of prayer: "Thee alone we
   acknowledge as God, thee we reverence as king, to thee we call as our
   helper. To thee we owe our victories, by thee have we obtained the
   mastery of our enemies. To thee we give thanks for benefits already
   received, from thee we hope for benefits to come. We all fall at thy
   feet, and fervently beg that thou wouldest preserve to us our emperor
   Constantine and his divinely beloved sons in long life healthful and
   victorious." [695]

   Constantine's successors pursued the Sunday legislation which he had
   initiated, and gave a legal sanction and civil significance also to
   other holy days of the church, which have no Scriptural authority, so
   that the special reverence due to the Lord's Day was obscured in
   proportion as the number of rival claims increased. Thus Theodosius I.
   increased the number of judicial holidays to one hundred and
   twenty-four. The Valentinians, I. and II., prohibited the exaction of
   taxes and the collection of moneys on Sunday, and enforced the
   previously enacted prohibition of lawsuits. Theodosius the Great, in
   386, and still more stringently the younger Theodosius, in 425, forbade
   theatrical performances, and Leo and Anthemius, in 460, prohibited
   other secular amusements, on the Lord's Day. [696] Such laws, however,
   were probably never rigidly executed. A council of Carthage, in 401,
   laments the people's passion for theatrical and other entertainments on
   Sunday. The same abuse, it is well known, very generally prevails to
   this day upon the continent of Europe in both Protestant and Roman
   Catholic countries, and Christian princes and magistrates only too
   frequently give it the sanction of their example.

   Ecclesiastical legislation in like manner prohibited needless
   mechanical and agricultural labor, and the attending of theatres and
   other public places of amusement, also hunting and weddings, on Sunday
   and on feast days. Besides such negative legislation, to which the
   state must confine itself, the church at the same time enjoined
   positive observances for the sacred day, especially the regular
   attendance of public worship, frequent communion, and the payment of
   free-will offerings (tithes). Many a council here confounded the legal
   and the evangelical principles, thinking themselves able to enforce by
   the threatening of penalties what has moral value only as a voluntary
   act. The Council of Eliberis, in 305, decreed the suspension from
   communion of any person living in a town who shall absent himself for
   three Lord's Days from church. In the same legalistic spirit, the
   council of Sardica, [697] in 343, and the Trullan council [698] of 692,
   threatened with deposition the clergy who should unnecessarily omit
   public worship three Sundays in succession, and prescribed temporary
   excommunication for similar neglect among the laity. But, on the other
   hand, the councils, while they turned the Lord's Day itself into a
   legal ordinance handed down from the apostles, pronounced with all
   decision against the Jewish Sabbatism. The Apostolic Canons and the
   council of Gangra (the latter, about 450, in opposition to the Gnostic
   Manichaean asceticism of the Eustathians) condemn fasting on Sunday.
   [699] In the Greek church this prohibition is still in force, because
   Sunday, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, is a day of spiritual
   joy. On the same symbolical ground kneeling in prayer was forbidden on
   Sunday and through the whole time of Easter until Pentecost. The
   general council of Nicaeea, in 325, issued on this point in the
   twentieth canon the following decision: "Whereas some bow the knee on
   Sunday and on the days of Pentecost [i.e., during the seven weeks after
   Easter], the holy council, that everything may everywhere be uniform,
   decrees that prayers be offered to God in a standing posture." The
   Trullan council, in 692, ordained in the ninetieth canon: "From
   Saturday evening to Sunday evening let no one bow the knee." The Roman
   church in general still adheres to this practice. [700] The New
   Testament gives no law for such secondary matters; the apostle Paul, on
   the contrary, just in the season of Easter and Pentecost, before his
   imprisonment, following an inward dictate, repeatedly knelt in prayer.
   [701] The council of Orleans, in 538, says in the twenty-eighth canon:
   "It is Jewish superstition, that one may not ride or walk on Sunday,
   nor do anything to adorn the house or the person. But occupations in
   the field are forbidden, that people may come to the church and give
   themselves to prayer." [702]

   As to the private opinions of the principal fathers on this subject,
   they all favor the sanctification of the Lord's Day, but treat it as a
   peculiarly Christian institution, and draw a strong, indeed a too
   strong, line of distinction between it and the Jewish Sabbath;
   forgetting that they are one in essence and aim, though different in
   form and spirit, and that the fourth commandment as to its
   substance--viz., the keeping holy of one day out of seven--is an
   integral part of the decalogue or the moral law, and hence of perpetual
   obligation. [703] Eusebius calls Sunday, but not the Sabbath, "the
   first and chief of days and a day of salvation," and commends
   Constantine for commanding that "all should assemble together every
   week, and keep that which is called the Lord's Day as a festival, to
   refresh even their bodies and to stir up their minds by divine precepts
   and instruction." [704] Athanasius speaks very highly of the Lord's
   Day, as the perpetual memorial of the resurrection, but assumes that
   the old Sabbath has deceased. [705] Macarius, a presbyter of Upper
   Egypt (350), spiritualizes the Sabbath as a type and shadow of the true
   Sabbath given by the Lord to the soul--the true and eternal Sabbath,
   which is freedom from sin. [706] Hilary represents the whole of this
   life as a preparation for the eternal Sabbath of the next. Epiphanius
   speaks of Sunday as an institution of the apostles, but falsely
   attributes the same origin to the observance of Wednesday and Friday as
   half fasts. Ambrose frequently mentions Sunday as an evangelical
   festival, and contrasts it with the defunct legal Sabbath. Jerome makes
   the same distinction. He relates of the Egyptian coenobites that they
   "devote themselves on the Lord's Day to nothing but prayer and reading
   the Scriptures." But he mentions also without censure, that the pious
   Paula and her companions, after returning from church on Sundays,
   "applied themselves to their allotted works and made garments for
   themselves and others." Augustine likewise directly derives Sunday from
   the resurrection, and not from the fourth commandment. Fasting on that
   day of spiritual joy he regards, like Ambrose, as a grave scandal and
   heretical practice. The Apostolical Constitutions in this respect go
   even still further, and declare: "He that fasts on the Lord's Day is
   guilty of sin." But they still prescribe the celebration of the Jewish
   Sabbath on Saturday in addition to the Christian Sunday. Chrysostom
   warns Christians against sabbatizing with the Jews, but earnestly
   commends the due celebration of the Lord's Day. Leo the Great, in a
   beautiful passage--the finest of all the patristic utterances on this
   subject--lauds the Lord's Day as the day of the primitive creation, of
   the Christian redemption, of the meeting of the risen Saviour with the
   assembled disciples, of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, of the
   principal Divine blessings bestowed upon the world. [707] But he
   likewise brings it in no connection with the fourth commandment, and
   with the other fathers leaves out of view the proper foundation of the
   day in the eternal moral law of God.

   Besides Sunday, the Jewish Sabbath also was distinguished in the
   Eastern church by the absence of fasting and by standing in prayer. The
   Western church, on the contrary, especially the Roman, in protest
   against Judaism, observed the seventh day of the week as a fast day,
   like Friday. This difference between the two churches was permanently
   fixed by the fifty-fifth canon of the Trullan council of 692: "In Rome
   fasting is practised on all the Saturdays of Quadragesima [the forty
   days' fast before Easter]. This is contrary to the sixty-sixth
   apostolic canon, and must no longer be done. Whoever does it, if a
   clergyman, shall be deposed; if a layman, excommunicated."

   Wednesday and Friday also continued to be observed in many countries as
   days commemorative of the passion of Christ (dies stationum), with
   half-fasting. The Latin church, however, gradually substituted fasting
   on Saturday for fasting on Wednesday.

   Finally, as to the daily devotions: the number of the canonical hours
   was enlarged from three to seven (according to Ps. cxix. 164: "Seven
   times in a day will I praise thee But they were strictly kept only in
   the cloisters, under the technical names of matina (about three
   o'clock), prima (about six), tertia (nine), sexta (noon), nona (three
   in the afternoon), vesper (six), completorium (nine), and mesonyctium
   or vigilia (midnight). Usually two nocturnal prayers were united. The
   devotions consisted of prayer, singing, Scripture reading, especially
   in the Psalms, and readings from the histories of the martyrs and the
   homilies of the fathers. In the churches ordinarily only morning and
   evening worship was held. The high festivals were introduced by a night
   service, the vigils.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [692] For a fuller exposition of the Author's views on the Christian
   Sabbath, see his Essay on the Anglo-American Sabbath (English and
   German), New York, 1863.

   [693] Lex Constantini a. 321 (Cod. Just. l. iii., Tit. 12, 3):
   Imperator Constantinus Aug. Helpidio: "Omnes judices, urbanaeque plebes
   et cunctarum artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen
   positi agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant, quoniam
   frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis aut vineae
   scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti
   provisione concessa. Dat. Non. Mart. Crispo ii. et Constantino ii.
   Coss." In English: "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates
   and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In
   the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and
   lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another
   day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by
   neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven
   should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and
   Constantinebeing consuls each of them for the second time.)" The
   prohibition of military exercises is mentioned by Eusebius, Vita Const.
   IV. 19, 20, and seems to refer to a somewhat later period. In this
   point Constantinewas in advance of modern Christian princes, who prefer
   Sunday for parades.

   [694] Cod. Theod. l. ii. tit. 8, 1: "Sicut indignissimum videbatur,
   diem Solis ... altercantibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus
   occupari, ita gratum et jocundum est, eo die, quae sunt maxime votiva,
   compleri; atque ideo emancipandi et manumittendi die festo cuncti
   licentiam habeant."

   [695] Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 20.

   [696] Cod. Theod. xv. 5, 2, a. 386: "Nullus Solis die populo
   spectaculum praebeat." If the emperor's birthday fell on Sunday, the
   acknowledgment of it, which was accompanied by games, was to be
   postponed.

   [697] Can. xi. appealing to former ordinances, Comp. Can. Apost. xiii.
   and xiv. (xiv. and xv.), and the council of Elvira, can. xxi. Hefele:
   Conciliengesch. i. p. 570.

   [698] Can. lxxx.

   [699] Can. Apost. liii. (alias Iii.): "Si quis episcopus aut presbyter
   aut diaconus in diebus festis non sumit carnem aut vinum, deponatur."
   Comp. can. lxvi. (lxv.) and Const. Apost. v. 20. The council of Gangra
   says in the 18th canon: "If any one, for pretended ascetic reasons,
   fast on Sunday, let him be anathema." The same council condemns those
   who despise the house of God and frequent schismatical assemblies.

   [700] Comp. the Corpus juris can. c. 13, Dist. 3 de consecr. Roman
   Catholics, however, always kneel in the reception and adoration of the
   sacrament.

   [701] Acts xx. 36; xxi. 5.

   [702] Comp. the brief scattered decrees of the councils on the
   sanctification of Sunday, in Hefele, l.c. i. 414, 753, 760, 761, 794;
   ii 69, 647, 756; Neale's Feasts and Fasts; and Gilfillan: The Sabbath,
   &c., p. 390.

   [703] See the principal patristic passages on the Lord's Day in Hessey,
   Sunday, etc., p. 90 ff. and p. 388 ff. Hessey says, p. 114: "In no
   clearly genuine passage that I can discover in any writer of these two
   [the fourth and fifth] centuries, or in any public document,
   ecclesiastical or civil, is the fourth commandment referred to as the
   ground of the obligation to observe the Lord's Day." The Reformers of
   the sixteenth century, likewise, in their zeal against legalism and for
   Christian freedom, entertained rather lax views on the Sabbath law. It
   was left for Puritanism in England, at the close of Queen Elizabeth's
   reign, to bring out the perpetuity of the fourth commandment and the
   legal and general moral feature in the Christian Sabbath. The book of
   Dr. Bownd, first published in 1595, under the title, "The Doctrine of
   the Sabbath," produced an entire revolution on the subject in the
   English mind, which is visible to this day in the strict observance of
   the Lord's Day in England, Scotland, the British Provinces, and the
   United States. Comp. on Dr. Bownd's book my Essay above quoted, p. 16
   ff., Gilfillan, p. 69 ff., and Hessey, p. 276 ff.

   [704] De Laud. Const. c. 9 arid 17.

   [705] In the treatise: De sabbatis et de circumcisione, which is among
   the doubtful works of Athanasius.

   [706] Hom. 35.

   [707] Leon. Epist. ix. ad Dioscurum Alex. Episc. c. 1 (Opp. ed.
   Ballerini, tom. i. col. 630): "Dies resurrectionis Dominicae ... quae
   tantis divinarum dispositionum mysteriis est consecrata, ut quicquid
   est a Domino insignius constitutum, in huius piei dignitate sit gestum.
   In hac mundus sumpsit exordium. In hac per resurrectionem Christi et
   mors interitum, et vita accepit initium. In hac apostoli a Domino
   praedicandi omnibus gentibus evangelii tubam sumunt, et inferendum
   universo mundo sacramentum regenerationis accipiunt. In hac, sicut
   beatus Joannes evangelista testatur (Joann. xx. 22), congregatis in
   unum discipulis, januis clausis, cum ad eos Dominus introisset,
   insufflavit, et dixit: 'Accipite Spiritum Sanctum; quorum remiseritis
   peccata, remittuntur eis, et quorum detinueritis, detenta erunt.'In hac
   denique promissus a Domino apostolis Spiritus Sanctus advenit: ut
   coelesti quadam regula insinuatum et traditum noverimus, in illa die
   celebranda nobis esse mysteria sacerdotalium benedictionum, in qua
   collata sunt omnia dona gratiarum."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 76. The Church Year.

   R. Hospinian: Festa Christian. (Tiguri, 1593) Genev. 1675. M. A. Nickel
   (R.C.): Die heil. Zeiten u. Feste nach ihrer Entstehung u. Feier in der
   Kath. Kirche, Mainz, 1825 sqq. 6 vols. Pillwitz: Geschichte der heil.
   Zeiten. Dresden, 1842. E. Ranke: Das kirchliche Pericopensystem aus den
   aeltesten Urkunden dargelegt. Berlin, 1847. Fr. Strauss (late court
   preacher and professor in Berlin): Das evangelische Kirchenjahr. Berl.
   1850. Lisco: Das christliche Kirchenjahr. Berl. (1840) 4th ed. 1850.
   Bobertag: Das evangelische Kirchenjahr, &c. Breslau, 1857. Comp. also
   Augusti: Handbuch der Christlichen Archaeologie, vol. i. (1836), pp.
   457-595.

   After the, fourth century, the Christian year, with a cycle of
   regularly recurring annual religious festivals, comes forth in all its
   main outlines, though with many fluctuations and variations in
   particulars, and forms thenceforth, so to speak, the skeleton of the
   Catholic cultus.

   The idea of a religious year, in distinction from the natural and from
   the civil year, appears also in Judaism, and to some extent in the
   heathen world. It has its origin in the natural necessity of keeping
   alive and bringing to bear upon the people by public festivals the
   memory of great and good men and of prominent events. The Jewish
   ecclesiastical year was, like the whole Mosaic cultus, symbolical and
   typical. The Sabbath commemorated the creation and the typical
   redemption, and pointed forward to the resurrection and the true
   redemption, and thus to the Christian Sunday. The passover pointed to
   Easter, and the feast of harvest to the Christian Pentecost. The Jewish
   observance of these festivals originally bore an earnest, dignified,
   and significant character, but in the hands of Pharisaism it
   degenerated very largely into slavish Sabbatism and heartless ceremony,
   and provoked the denunciation of Christ and the apostles. The heathen
   festivals of the gods ran to the opposite extreme of excessive sensual
   indulgence and public vice. [708]

   The peculiarity of the Christian year is, that it centres in the person
   and work of Jesus Christ, and is intended to minister to His glory. In
   its original idea it is a yearly representation of the leading events
   of the gospel history; a celebration of the birth, passion, and
   resurrection of Christ, and of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, to
   revive gratitude and devotion. This is the festival part, the semestre
   Domini. The other half, not festal, the semestre ecclesiae, is devoted
   to the exhibition of the life of the Christian church, its founding,
   its growth, and its consummation, both is a whole, and in its
   individual members, from the regeneration to the resurrection of the
   dead. The church year is, so to speak, a chronological confession of
   faith; a moving panorama of the great events of salvation; a dramatic
   exhibition of the gospel for the Christian people. It secures to every
   important article of faith its place in the cultus of the church, and
   conduces to wholeness and soundness of Christian doctrine, as against
   all unbalanced and erratic ideas. [709] It serves to interweave
   religion with the, life of the people by continually recalling to the
   popular mind the most important events upon which our salvation rests,
   and by connecting them with the vicissitudes of the natural and the
   civil year. Yet, on the other hand, the gradual overloading of the
   church year, and the multiplication of saints' days, greatly encouraged
   superstition and idleness, crowded the Sabbath and the leading
   festivals into the background, and subordinated the merits of Christ to
   the patronage of saints. The purification and simplification aimed at
   by the Reformation became an absolute necessity.

   The order of the church year is founded in part upon the history of
   Jesus and of the apostolic church; in part, especially in respect to
   Easter and Pentecost, upon the Jewish sacred year; and in part upon the
   natural succession of seasons; for the life of nature in general forms
   the groundwork of the higher life of the spirit, and there is an
   evident symbolical correspondence between Easter and spring, Pentecost
   and the beginning of harvest, Christmas and the winter solstice, the
   nativity of John the Baptist and the summer solstice.

   The Christian church year, however, developed itself spontaneously from
   the demands of the Christian worship and public life, after the
   precedent of the Old Testament cultus, with no positive direction from
   Christ or the apostles. The New Testament contains no certain traces of
   annual festivals; but so early as the second century we meet with the
   general observance of Easter and Pentecost, founded on the Jewish
   passover and feast of harvest, and answering to Friday and Sunday in
   the weekly cycle. Easter was a season of sorrow, in remembrance of the
   passion; Pentecost was a time of joy, in memory of the resurrection of
   the Redeemer and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. [710] These two
   festivals form the heart of the church year. Less important was the
   feast of the Epiphany, or manifestation of Christ as Messiah. In the
   fourth century the Christmas festival was added to the two former
   leading feasts, and partially took the place of the earlier feast of
   Epiphany, which now came to be devoted particularly to the
   manifestation of Christ among the Gentiles. And further, in Easter the
   pascha staurosimonand anastasimoncame to be more strictly
   distinguished, the latter being reckoned a season of joy.

   From this time, therefore, we have three great festival cycles, each
   including a season of preparation before the feast and an after-season
   appropriate: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The lesser feasts of
   Epiphany and Ascension arranged themselves under these. [711] All bear
   originally a christological character, representing the three stages of
   the redeeming work of Christ: the beginning, the prosecution, and the
   consummation. All are for the glorification of God in Christ.

   The trinitarian conception and arrangement of the festal half of the
   church year is of much later origin, cotemporary with the introduction
   of the festival of the Trinity (on the Sunday after Pentecost). The
   feast of Trinity dates from the ninth or tenth century, and was first
   authoritatively established in the Latin church by Pope John XXII., in
   1334, as a comprehensive closing celebration of the revelation of God
   the Father, who sent His Son (Christmas), of the Son, who died for us
   and rose again (Easter), and of the Holy Ghost, who renews and
   sanctifies us (Pentecost). [712] The Greek church knows nothing of this
   festival to this day, though she herself, in the Nicene age, was
   devoted with special earnestness and zeal to the development of the
   doctrine of the Trinity. The reason of this probably is, that there was
   no particular historical fact to give occasion for such celebration,
   and that the mystery of the holy Trinity, revealed in Christ, is
   properly the object of adoration in all the church festivals and in the
   whole Christian cultus.

   But with these three great feast-cycles the ancient church was not
   satisfied. So early as the Nicene age it surrounded them with feasts of
   Mary, of the apostles, of martyrs, and of saints, which were at first
   only local commemorations, but gradually assumed the character of
   universal feasts of triumph. By degrees every day of the church year
   became sacred to the memory of a particular martyr or saint, and in
   every case was either really or by supposition the day of the death of
   the saint, which was significantly called his heavenly birth-day. [713]
   This multiplication of festivals has at bottom the true thought, that
   the whole life of the Christian should be one unbroken spiritual
   festivity. But the Romish calendar of saints anticipates an ideal
   condition, and corrupts the truth by exaggeration, as the Pharisees
   made the word of God "of none effect" by their additions. It
   obliterates the necessary distinction between Sunday and the six days
   of labor, to the prejudice of the former, and plays into the hands of
   idleness. And finally, it rests in great part upon uncertain legends
   and fantastic myths, which in some cases even eclipse the miracles of
   the gospel history, and nourish the grossest superstition.

   The Greek oriental church year differs from the Roman in this general
   characteristic: that it adheres more closely to the Jewish ceremonies
   and customs, while the Roman attaches itself to the natural year and
   common life. The former begins in the middle of September (Tisri), with
   the first Sunday after the feast of the Holy Cross; the latter, with
   the beginning of Advent, four weeks before Christmas. Originally Easter
   was the beginning of the church year, both in the East and in the West;
   and the Apostolic Constitutions and Eusebius call the month of Easter
   the "first month" (corresponding to the month Nisan, which opened the
   sacred year of the Jews, while the first of Tisri, about the middle of
   our September, opened their civil year). In the Greek church also the
   lectiones continuae of the Holy Scriptures, after the example of the
   Jewish Parashioth and Haphthoroth, became prominent and the church year
   came to be divided according to the four Evangelists; while in the
   Latin church, since the sixth century, only select sections from the
   Gospels, and Epistles, called pericopes, have been read. Another
   peculiarity of the Western church year, descending from the fourth
   century, is the division into four portions, of three months each,
   called Quatember, [714] separated from each other by a three days'
   fast. Pope Leo I. delivered several sermons on the quarterly Quatember
   fast, [715] and urges especially on that occasion charity to the poor.
   Instead of this the Greek church has a division according to the four
   Gospels, which are read entire in course; Matthew next after Pentecost,
   Luke beginning on the fourteenth of September, Mark at the Easter fast,
   and John on the first Sunday after Easter.

   So early as the fourth century the observance of the festivals was
   enjoined under ecclesiastical penalties, and was regarded as an
   established divine ordinance. But the most eminent church teachers, a
   Chrysostom, a Jerome, and an Augustine, expressly insist, that the
   observance of the Christian festivals must never be a work of legal
   constraint, but always an act of evangelical freedom; and Socrates, the
   historian, says, that Christ and the apostles have given no laws and
   prescribed no penalties concerning it. [716]

   The abuse of the festivals soon fastened itself on the just use of them
   and the sensual excesses of the pagan feasts, in spite of the earnest
   warnings of several fathers, swept in like a wild flood upon the
   church. Gregory Nazianzen feels called upon, with reference
   particularly to the feast of Epiphany, to caution his people against
   public parade, splendor of dress, banquetings, and drinking revels, and
   says: "Such things we will leave to the Greeks, who worship their gods
   with the belly; but we, who adore the eternal Word, will find our only
   satisfaction in the word and the divine law, and in the contemplation
   of the holy object of our feast." [717] On the other hand, however, the
   Catholic church, especially after Pope Gregory I. (the "pater
   caerimoniarum"), with a good, but mistaken intention, favored the
   christianizing of heathen forms of cultus and popular festivals, and
   thereby contributed unconsciously to the paganizing of Christianity in
   the Middle Age. The calendar saints took the place of the ancient
   deities, and Rome became a second time a pantheon. Against this new
   heathenism, with its sweeping abuses, pure Christianity was obliged
   with all earnestness and emphasis to protest.

   Note. - The Reformation of the sixteenth century sought to restore the
   entire cultus, and with it the Catholic church year, to its primitive
   Biblical simplicity; but with different degrees of consistency. The
   Lutheran, the Anglican, and the German Reformed churches--the latter
   with the greater freedom--retained the chief festivals, Christmas,
   Easter, and Pentecost, together with the system of pericopes, and in
   some cases also the days of Mary and the apostles (though these are
   passing more and more out of use); while the strictly Calvinistic
   churches, particularly the Presbyterians and Congregationalists,
   rejected all the yearly festivals as human institutions, but, on the
   other hand, introduced a proportionally stricter observance of the
   weekly day of rest instituted by God Himself. The Scotch General
   Assembly of August 6th, 1575, resolved: "That all days which heretofore
   have been kept holy, besides the Sabbath-days, such as Yule day
   [Christmas], saints' days, and such others, may be abolished, and a
   civil penalty be appointed against the keepers thereof by ceremonies,
   banqueting, fasting, and such other vanities." At first, the most of
   the Reformers, even Luther and Bucer, were for the abolition of all
   feast days, except Sunday; but the genius and long habits of the people
   were against such a radical reform. After the end of the sixteenth and
   beginning of the seventeenth century the strict observance of Sunday
   developed itself in Great Britain and North America; while the
   Protestantism of the continent of Europe is much looser in this
   respect, and not essentially different from Catholicism. It is
   remarkable, that the strictest observance of Sunday is found just in
   those countries where the yearly feasts have entirely lost place in the
   popular mind: Scotland and New England. In the United States, however,
   for some years past, the Christmas and Easter festivals have regained
   ground without interfering at all with the strict observance of the
   Lord's day, and promise to become regular American institutions. Good
   Friday and Pentecost will follow. On Good Friday of the year 1864 the
   leading ministers of the different evangelical churches in New York
   (the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Dutch and German Reformed, Lutheran,
   Congregational, Methodist, and Baptist) freely united in the
   celebration of the atoning death of their common Saviour and in
   humiliation and prayer to the great edification of the people. It is
   acknowledged more and more that the observance of the great facts of
   the evangelical history to the honor of Christ is a common inheritance
   of primitive Christianity and inseparable from Christian worship."
   These festivals" (says Prof. Dr. Henry B. Smith in his admirable
   opening sermon of the Presbyterian General Assembly, N. S., of 1864, on
   Christian Union and Ecclesiastical Re-union), "antedate, not only our
   (Protestant) divisions, but also the corruptions of the Papacy; they
   exalt the Lord and not man; they involve a public and solemn
   recognition of essential Christian facts, and are thus a standing
   protest against infidelity; they bring out the historic side of the
   Christian faith, and connect us with its whole history; and all in the
   different denominations could unite in their observance without
   sacrificing any article of their creed or discipline." There is no
   danger that American Protestantism will transgress the limits of
   primitive evangelical simplicity in this respect, and ever return to
   the papal Mariolatry and Hagiolatry. The Protestant churches have
   established also many new annual festivals, such as the feasts of the
   Reformation, of Harvest-home, and of the Dead in Germany; and in
   America, the frequent days of fasting and prayer, besides the annual
   Thanksgiving-day, which originated in Puritan New England, and has been
   gradually adopted in almost all the states of the Union, and quite
   recently by the general government itself, as a national institution.
   With the pericopes, or Scripture lessons, the Reformed church
   everywhere deals much more freely than the Lutheran, and properly
   reserves the right to expound the whole word of Scripture in any
   convenient order according to its choice. The Gospels and Epistles may
   be read as a regular part of the Sabbath service; but the minister
   should be free to select his text from any portion of the Canonical
   Scriptures; only it is always advisable to follow a system and to go,
   if possible, every year through the whole plan and order of salvation
   in judicious adaptation to the church year and the wants of the people.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [708] Philo, in his Tract de Cherubim (in Augusti, l.c. p. 481 sq.),
   paints this difference between the Jewish and heathen festivals in
   strong colors; and the picture was often used by the church fathers
   against the degenerate pagan character of the Christian festivals.

   [709] This last thought is well drawn out by W. Archer Butler in one of
   his sermons: "It is the chief advantage of that religious course of
   festivals by which the church fosters the piety of her children, that
   they tend to preserve a due proportion and equilibrium in our religious
   views. We have all a tendency to adopt particular views of the
   Christian truths, to insulate certain doctrines from their natural
   accompaniments, and to call our favorite fragment the gospel. We hold a
   few texts so near our eyes that they hide all the rest of the Bible.
   The church festival system spreads the gospel history in all its
   fulness across the whole surface of the sacred year. It is a sort of
   chronological creed, and forces us, whether we will or no, by the very
   revolution of times and seasons, to give its proper place and dignity
   to every separate article. 'Day unto day uttereth speech,' and the tone
   of each holy anniversary is distinct and decisive. Thus the festival
   year is a bulwark of orthodoxy as real as our confession of faith."
   History shows, however (especially that of Germany and France), that
   neither the church year nor creeds can prevent a fearful apostasy to
   rationalism and infidelity.

   [710] Comp. vol. i. § 99

   [711] . There was no unanimity, however, in this period, in the number
   of the feasts. Chrysostom, for example, counts seven principal feasts,
   corresponding to the seven days of the week: Christmas, Epiphany,
   Passion, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and the Feast of the
   Resurrection of the Dead. The last, however, is not a strictly
   ecclesiastical feast, and the later Greeks reckon only six principal
   festivals, answering to the six days of creation, followed by the
   eternal Sabbath of the church triumphant in heaven. Comp. Augusti, i.
   p. 530,

   [712] The assertion that the festum Trinitatis descends from the time
   of Gregory the Great, has poor foundation in his words: "Ut de
   Trinitate specialia cantaremus; for these refer to the praise of the
   holy Trinity in the general public worship of God. The first clear
   traces of this festival appear in the time of Charlemagne and in the
   tenth century, when Bishop Stephen of Liege vindicated it. Yet so late
   as 1150 it was counted by the abbot Potho at Treves among the novae
   celebritates. Many considered it improper to celebrate a special feast
   of the Trinity, while there was no distinct celebration of the unity of
   God. The Roman church year reached its culmination and mysterious close
   in the feast of Corpus Christi (the body of Christ), which was
   introduced under Pope Clement the Fifth, in 1311, and was celebrated on
   Thursday of Trinity week (feria quinta proxima post octavam
   Pentecostes) in honor of the mystery of transubstantiation.

   [713] Hence called Natales, natalitia, nativitas, genethlia, of the
   martyrs. The Greek church also has its saint for every day of the year,
   but varies in many particulars from the Roman calendar.

   [714] Quatuor tempora.

   [715] Sermones de jejunio quatuor temporum.

   [716] Comp. the passages in Augusti, l.c. i. p. 474 sqq.

   [717] Orat. 38 in Theoph., cited at large by Augusti, p. 483 sq. Comp.
   Augustine, Ep. 22, 3; 29, 9, according to which "comessationes et
   ebrietates in honorem etiam beatissimorum martyrum" were of almost
   daily occurrence in the African church, and were leniently judged, lest
   the transition of the heathen should be discouraged.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 77. The Christmas Cycle.

   Besides the general literature given in the previous section, there are
   many special treatises on the origin of the Christmas festival, by
   Bynaeus, Kindler, Ittig, Vogel, Wernsdorf, Jablonsky, Planck,
   Hagenbach, P. Cassel, &c. Comp. Augusti: Archaeol. i. 533.

   The Christmas festival [718] is the celebration of the incarnation of
   the Son of God. It is occupied, therefore, with the event which forms
   the centre and turning-point of the history of the world. It is of all
   the festivals the one most thoroughly interwoven with the popular and
   family life, and stands at the head of the great feasts in the Western
   church year. It continues to be, in the entire Catholic world and in
   the greater part of Protestant Christendom, the grand jubilee of
   children, on which innumerable gifts celebrate the infinite love of God
   in the gift of his only-begotten Son. It kindles in mid-winter a holy
   fire of love and gratitude, and preaches in the longest night the
   rising of the Sun of life and the glory of the Lord. It denotes the
   advent of the true golden age, of the freedom and equality of all the
   redeemed before God and in God. No one can measure the joy and blessing
   which from year to year flow forth upon all ages of life from the
   contemplation of the holy child Jesus in his heavenly innocence and
   divine humility.

   Notwithstanding this deep significance and wide popularity, the
   festival of the birth of the Lord is of comparatively late institution.
   This may doubtless be accounted for in the following manner: In the
   first place, no corresponding festival was presented by the Old
   Testament, as in the case of Easter and Pentecost. In the second place,
   the day and month of the birth of Christ are nowhere stated in the
   gospel history, and cannot be certainly determined. Again: the church
   lingered first of all about the death and resurrection of Christ, the
   completed fact of redemption, and made this the centre of the weekly
   worship and the church year. Finally: the earlier feast of Epiphany
   afforded a substitute. The artistic religious impulse, however, which
   produced the whole church year, must sooner or later have called into
   existence a festival which forms the groundwork of all other annual
   festivals in honor of Christ. For, as Chrysostom, some ten years, after
   the introduction of this anniversary in Antioch, justly said, without
   the birth of Christ there were also no baptism, passion, resurrection,
   or ascension, and no outpouring of the Holy Ghost; hence no feast of
   Epiphany, of Easter, or of Pentecost.

   The feast of Epiphany had spread from the East to the West. The feast
   of Christmas took the opposite course. We find it first in Rome, in the
   time of the bishop Liberius, who on the twenty-fifth of December, 360,
   consecrated Marcella, the sister of St. Ambrose, nun or bride of
   Christ, and addressed her with the words: "Thou seest what multitudes
   are come to the birth-festival of thy bridegroom." [719] This passage
   implies that the festival was already existing and familiar. Christmas
   was introduced in Antioch about the year 380; in Alexandria, where the
   feast of Epiphany was celebrated as the nativity of Christ, not till
   about 430. Chrysostom, who delivered the Christmas homily in Antioch on
   the 25th of December, 386, [720] already calls it, notwithstanding its
   recent introduction (some ten years before), the fundamental feast, or
   the root, from which all other Christian festivals grow forth.

   The Christmas festival was probably the Christian transformation or
   regeneration of a series of kindred heathen festivals--the Saturnalia,
   Sigillaria, Juvenalia, and Brumalia--which were kept in Rome in the
   month of December, in commemoration of the golden age of universal
   freedom and equality, and in honor of the unconquered sun, and which
   were great holidays, especially for slaves and children. [721] This
   connection accounts for many customs of the Christmas season, like the
   giving of presents to children and to the poor, the lighting of wax
   tapers, perhaps also the erection of Christmas trees, and gives them a
   Christian import; while it also betrays the origin of the many excesses
   in which the unbelieving world indulges at this season, in wanton
   perversion of the true Christmas mirth, but which, of course, no more
   forbid right use, than the abuses of the Bible or of any other gift of
   God. Had the Christmas festival arisen in the period of the
   persecution, its derivation from these pagan festivals would be refuted
   by the then reigning abhorrence of everything heathen; but in the
   Nicene age this rigidness of opposition between the church and the
   world was in a great measure softened by the general conversion of the
   heathen. Besides, there lurked in those pagan festivals themselves, in
   spite of all their sensual abuses, a deep meaning and an adaptation to
   a real want; they might be called unconscious prophecies of the
   Christmas feast. Finally, the church fathers themselves [722] confirm
   the symbolical reference of the feast of the birth of Christ, the Sun
   of righteousness, the Light of the world, to the birth-festival of the
   unconquered sun, [723] which on the twenty-fifth of December, after the
   winter solstice, breaks the growing power of darkness, and begins anew
   his heroic career. It was at the same time, moreover, the prevailing
   opinion of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries, that Christ
   was actually born on the twenty-fifth of December; and Chrysostom
   appeals, in behalf of this view, to the date of the registration under
   Quirinius (Cyrenius), preserved in the Roman archives. But no certainly
   respecting the birthday of Christ can be reached from existing data.
   [724]

   Around the feast of Christmas other festivals gradually gathered, which
   compose, with it, the Christmas Cycle. The celebration of the
   twenty-fifth of December was preceded by the Christmas Vigils, or
   Christmas Night, which was spent with the greater solemnity, because
   Christ was certainly born in the night. [725]

   After Gregory the Great the four Sundays before Christmas began to be
   devoted to the preparation for the coming of our Lord in the flesh and
   for his second coming to the final judgment. Hence they were called
   Advent Sundays. With the beginning of Advent the church year in the
   West began. The Greek church reckons six Advent Sundays, and begins
   them with the fourteenth of November. This Advent season was designed
   to represent and reproduce in the consciousness of the church at once
   the darkness and the yearning and hope of the long ages before Christ.
   Subsequently all noisy amusements and also weddings were forbidden
   during this season. The pericopes are selected with reference to the
   awakening of repentance and of desire after the Redeemer.

   From the fourth century Christmas was followed by the memorial days of
   St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Dec. 26), of the apostle and
   evangelist John (Dec. 27), and of the Innocents of Bethlehem (Dec. 28),
   in immediate succession; representing a threefold martyrdom: martyrdom
   in will and in fact (Stephen), in will without the fact (John), and in
   fact without the will, an unconscious martyrdom of infanthe innocence.
   But Christian martyrdom in general was regarded by the early church as
   a heavenly birth and a fruit of the earthly birth of Christ. Hence the
   ancient festival hymn for the day of St. Stephen, the leader of the
   noble army of martyrs: "Yesterday was Christ born upon earth, that
   to-day Stephen might be born in heaven." [726] The close connection of
   the feast of John the, Evangelist with that of the birth of Christ
   arises from the confidential relation of the beloved disciple to the
   Lord, and from the fundamental thought of his Gospel: "The Word was
   made flesh." The innocent infant-martyrs of Bethlehem, "the blossoms of
   martyrdom, the rosebuds torn off by the hurricane of persecution, the
   offering of first-fruits to Christ, the tender flock of sacrificial
   lambs," are at the same time the representatives of the innumerable
   host of children in heaven. [727] More than half of the human race are
   said to die in infancy, and yet to children the word emphatically
   applies: "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The mystery of infant
   martyrdom is constantly repeated. How many children are apparently only
   born to suffer, and to die; but in truth the pains of their earthly
   birth are soon absorbed by the joys of their heavenly birth, and their
   temporary cross is rewarded by an eternal crown.

   Eight days after Christmas the church celebrated, though not till after
   the sixth or seventh century, the Circumcision and the Naming of Jesus.
   Of still later origin is the Christian New Year's festival, which falls
   on the same day as the Circumcision. The pagan Romans solemnized the
   turn of the year, like the Saturnalia, with revels. The church
   teachers, in reaction, made the New Year a day of penance and prayer.
   Thus Augustine, in a sermon: "Separate yourselves from the heathen, and
   at the change of the year do the opposite of what they do. They give
   each other gifts; give ye alms instead. They sing worldly songs; read
   ye the word of God. They throng the theatre come ye to the church. They
   drink themselves drunken; do ye fast."

   The feast of Epiphany [728] on the contrary, on the sixth of January,
   is older, as we have already observed, than Christmas itself, and is
   mentioned by Clement of Alexandria. It refers in general to the
   manifestation of Christ in the world, and originally bore the twofold
   character of a celebration of the birth and the baptism of Jesus. After
   the introduction of Christmas, it lost its reference to the birth. The
   Eastern church commemorated on this day especially the baptism of
   Christ, or the manifestation of His Messiahship, and together with this
   the first manifestation of His miraculous power at the marriage at
   Cana. The Westem church, more Gentile-Christian in its origin, gave
   this festival, after the fourth century, a special reference to the
   adoration of the infant Jesus by the wise men from the east, [729]
   under the name of the feast of the Three Kings, and transformed it into
   a festival of Gentile missions; considering the wise men as the
   representatives of the nobler heathen world. [730] Thus at the same
   time the original connection of the feast with the birth of Christ was
   preserved. Epiphany forms the close of the Christmas Cycle. It was an
   early custom to announce the term of the Easter observance on the day
   of Epiphany by the so-called Epistolae paschales, or gravmmata
   pascavlia. This was done especially by the bishop of Alexandria, where
   astronomy most flourished, and the occasion was improved for edifying
   instructions and for the discussion of important religious questions of
   the day.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [718] Natalis, or natalitia Domini or Christi,hemera genethlios,
   genethlia tou Christou.

   [719] Ambrose, De virgin. iii. 1: "Vides quantus ad natalem Sponsi tui
   populus convenerit, ut nemo impastus recedit?

   [720] Opp. ii. 384.

   [721] The Satumalia were the feast of Saturn or Kronos, in
   representation of the golden days of his reign, when all labor ceased,
   prisoners were set free, slaves went about in gentlemen's clothes and
   in the hat (the mark of a freeman), and all classes gave themselves up
   to mirth and rejoicing. The Sigillaria were a festival of images and
   puppets at the close of the Saturnalia on the 21st and 22d of December,
   when miniature images of the gods, wax tapers, and all sorts of
   articles of beauty and luxury were distributed to children and among
   kinsfolk. The Brumalia, from bruma (brevissima, the shortest day), had
   reference to the winter solstice, and the return of the Sol invictus.

   [722] Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyassa, Leo the Great, and others.

   [723] Dies or natales invicti Solis. This is the feast of the Persian
   sun-god Mithras, which was formally introduced in Rome under Domitian
   and Trajan.

   [724] In the early church, the 6th of January, the day of the Epiphany
   festival, was regarded by some as the birth-day of Christ. Among
   Biblical chronologists, Jerome, Baronius, Lamy, Usher, Petavius,
   Bengel, and Seyffarth, decide for the 25th of December, while Scaliger,
   Hug Wieseler, and Ellicott (Hist. Lectures on the Life of our Lord
   Jesus Christ, p. 70, note 3, Am. ed.), place the birth of Christ in the
   month of February. The passage in Luke, ii. 8, is frequently cited
   against the common view, because, according to the Talmudic writers,
   the flocks in Palestine were brought in at the beginning of November,
   and not driven to pasture again till toward March. Yet this rule,
   certainly, admitted many exceptions, according to the locality and the
   season. Comp. the extended discussion in Wieseler: Chronologische
   Synopse, p. 132 ff., and Seyffarth, Chronologia Sacra.

   [725] Luke ii. 8.

   [726] "Heri natus est Christus in terris, ut hodie Stephanus nasceretur
   in coelis." The connection is, however, a purely ideal one; for at
   first the death-day of Stephen was in August; afterward, on account of
   the discovery of his relics, it was transferred to January.

   [727] Comp. the beautiful hymn of the Spanish poet Prudentius, of the
   fifth century: "Salvete flores martyrum." German versions by Nickel,
   Königsfeld, Bässler, Hagenbach, &c. A good English version in "The
   Words of the Hymnal Noted, " Lond, p. 45: "All hail! ye Infant-Martyr
   flowers, Cut off in life's first dawning hours: As rosebuds, snapt in
   tempest strife, When Herod sought your Saviour's life," &c.

   [728] ta epiphaneia, or epiphania, Christ phania, also theophania.
   Comp. vol i. § 99.

   [729] Matt. ii. 1-11.

   [730] Augustine, Sermo 203: "Hodierno die manifestatus redemptor omnium
   gentium," &c. The transformation of the Persian magi or
   priest-philosophers into three kings (Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar)
   by the mediaeval legend was a hasty inference from the triplicity of
   the gifts and from Ps. lxxii. 10, 11. The legend brings us at last to
   the cathedral at Cologne, where the bodies of the three saint-kings are
   to this day exhibited and worshipped.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 78. The Easter Cycle.

   Easter is the oldest and greatest annual festival of the church. As to
   its essential idea and observance, it was born with the Christian
   Sunday on the morning of the resurrection. [731] Like the passover with
   the Jews, it originally marked the beginning of the church year. It
   revolves entirely about the person and the work of Christ, being
   devoted to the great saving fact of his passion and resurrection. We
   have already spoken of the origin and character of this festival, [732]
   and shall confine ourselves here to the alterations and enlargements
   which it underwent after the Nicene age.

   The Easter festival proper was preceded by a forty days' season of
   repentance and fasting, called Quadragesima, at least as early as the
   year 325; for the council of Nice presupposes the existence of this
   season. [733] This fast was an imitation of the forty days' fasting of
   Jesus in the wilderness, which itself was put in typical connection
   with the forty days' fasting of Moses [734] and Elijah, [735] and the
   forty years' wandering of Israel through the desert. At first a
   free-will act, it gradually assumed the character of a fixed custom and
   ordinance of the church. Respecting the length of the season much
   difference prevailed, until Gregory I. (590-604) fixed the Wednesday of
   the sixth week before Easter, Ash Wednesday as it is called, [736] as
   the beginning of it. On this day the priests and the people sprinkled
   themselves with dust and ashes, in token of their perishableness and
   their repentance, with the words: "Remember, O man, that dust thou art,
   and unto dust thou must return; repent, that thou mayest inherit
   eternal life." During Quadragesima criminal trials and criminal
   punishments, weddings, and sensual amusements were forbidden; solemn,
   earnest silence was imposed upon public and private life; and works of
   devotion, penances and charity were multiplied. Yet much hypocrisy was
   practised in the fasting; the rich compensating with exquisite dainties
   the absence of forbidden meats. Chrysostom and Augustine are found
   already lamenting this abuse. During the days preceding the beginning
   of Lent, the populace gave themselves up to unrestrained merriment, and
   this abuse afterward became legitimized in all Catholic countries,
   especially in Italy (flourishing most in Rome, Venice, and Cologne), in
   the Carnival. [737]

   The six Sundays of Lent are called Quadragesima prima, secunda, and so
   on to sexta. They are also named after the initial words of the introit
   in the mass for the day: Invocabit (Ps. xci. 15), Reminiscere, (Ps.
   xxv. 6), Oculi (Ps. xxxiv. 15), Laetare (Is. lxvi. 10), Judica (Ps.
   xliii. 1), Palmarum (from Matt. xxi. 8). The three Sundays preceding
   Quadragesima are called respectively Estomihi (from Ps. xxxi. 2) or
   Quinquagesima (i.e., Dominica quinquagesimae diei, viz., before
   Easter), Sexagesima, and Septuagesima; which are, however, inaccurate
   designations. These three Sundays were regarded as preparatory to the
   Lenten season proper. In the larger cities it became customary to
   preach daily during the Quadragesimal fast; and the usage of daily
   Lenten sermons (Quadragesimales, or sermones Quadragesimales) has
   maintained itself in the Roman church to this day.

   The Quadragesimal fast culminates in the Great, or Silent, or Holy
   Week, [738] which is especially devoted to the commemoration of the
   passion and death of Jesus, and is distinguished by daily public
   worship, rigid fasting, and deep silence. This week, again, has its
   prominent days. First Palm Sunday, [739] which has been, in the East
   since the fourth century, in the West since the sixth, observed in
   memory of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem for His enthronement on the
   cross. Next follows Maundy Thursday, [740] in commemoration of the
   institution of the Holy Supper, which on this day was observed in the
   evening, and was usually connected with a love feast, and also with
   feet-washing. The Friday of the Holy Week is distinguished from all
   others as Good Friday, [741] the day of the Saviour's death; the day of
   the deepest penance and fasting of the year, stripped of all Sunday
   splendor and liturgical pomp, veiled in the deepest silence and holy
   sorrow; the communion omitted (which had taken place the evening
   before), altars unclothed, crucifixes veiled, lights extinguished, the
   story of the passion read, and, instead of the church hymns, nothing
   sung but penitential psalms. Finally the Great Sabbath, [742] the day
   of the Lord's repose in the grave and descent into Hades; the favorite
   day in all the year for the administration of baptism, which symbolizes
   participation in the death of Christ. [743] The Great Sabbath was
   generally spent as a fast day, even in the Greek church, which usually
   did not fast on Saturday.

   In the evening of the Great Sabbath began the Easter Vigils, [744]
   which continued, with Scripture reading, singing, and prayer, to the
   dawn of Easter morning, and formed the solemn transition from the
   pascha staurosimon to the pascha anastasimon, and from the deep sorrow
   of penitence over the death of Jesus to the joy of faith in the
   resurrection of the Prince of life. All Christians, and even many
   pagans, poured into the church with lights, to watch there for the
   morning of the resurrection. On this night the cities were splendidly
   illuminated, and transfigured in a sea of fire; about midnight a solemn
   procession surrounded the church, and then triumphally entered again
   into the "holy gates," to celebrate Easter. According to an ancient
   tradition, it was expected that on Easter night Christ would come again
   to judge the world. [745]

   The Easter festival itself [746] began with the jubilant salutation,
   still practized in the Russian church: "The Lord is risen !" and the
   response: "He is truly risen! [747] Then the holy kiss of brotherhood
   scaled the newly fastened bond of love in Christ. It was the grandest
   and most joyful of the feasts. It lasted a whole week, and closed with
   the following Sunday, called the Easter Octave, [748] or White Sunday,
   [749] when the baptized appeared in white garments, and were solemnly
   incorporated into the church.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [731] The late Dr. Fried. Strauss of Berlin, an eminent writer on the
   church year (Das evangelische Kirchenjahr, p. 218), says: "Das heilige
   Osterfest ist das christliche Fest schlechthin. Es ist nicht blos
   Hauptfest, sondern das Fest, das einmal im Jahre vollstandig auftritt,
   aber in allen andern Festen von irgend einer Seite wiederkehrt, und
   eben dadurch diese zu Festen macht. Nannte man doch jeden Festtag, ja
   sogar jeden Sonntag aus diesem Grunde dies paschalis. Daher musste es
   auch das ursprüngliche Fest in dem umfassendsten Sinne des Wortes sein.
   Man kann nicht sagen, in welcher christlichen Zeit es entstanden sei;
   es ist mit der Kirche entstanden, und die Kirche ist mit ihm
   entstanden."

   [732] Vol. i. § 99 (p. 373 ff.).

   [733] In its fifth canon, where it orders that provincial councils be
   held twice a year, before Quadragesima (pro tes tessarakostes), and in
   the autumn.

   [734] Ex. xxxiv. 28.

   [735] 1 Kings xix. 8.

   [736] Dies cinerum, caput jejunii, or quadragesimae.

   [737] From caro and vale; flesh taking its departure for a time in a
   jubilee of revelling. According to others, it is the converse: dies quo
   caro valet; i.e., the day on which it is still allowed to eat flesh and
   to indulge the flesh. The Carnival, or Shrove-tide, embraces the time
   from the feast of Epiphany to Ash Wednesday, or, commonly, only the
   last three or the last eight days preceding Lent. It is celebrated in
   every city of Italy; in Rome, especially, with masquerades, races,
   dramatic plays, farces, jokes, and other forms of wild merriment and
   frantic joy, yet with good humor; replacing the old Roman feasts of
   Saturnalia, Lupercalia, and Floralia

   [738] Septimana sancta, magna, muta; hebdomas nigra, or paschalis;
   hebdomas megale, Passion Week.

   [739] Dominica palmarum; heorte ton baion.

   [740] Feria quinta paschae, dies natalis eucharistiae, dies viridium;
   hemegalepempte. The English name, Maundy Thursday, is derived from
   maundsor baskets, in which on that day the king of England distributed
   alms to certain poor at Whitehall, Maund is connected with the Latin
   mendicare, and French mendier, to beg.

   [741] Dies dominicae passionis; paraskeue, pascha staurosimon, hemera
   tou staurou. In German Char-Freitag either from the Greek charis, or,
   more probably, from the Latin carus, beloved, dear, comp. the English
   Good Friday. Other etymologists derive it from carena (carême), i.e.,
   fasting, or from kar (küren, to choose), i.e., the chosen day; others
   still from karo-parare, i.e., preparation-day.

   [742] Mega or hagion sabbaton; sabbatum magnum, or sanctum.

   [743] Rom. vi. 4-6.

   [744] Vigiliae paschales; pannuchides.

   [745] Comp. Lactantius: Inst. divin. vii. c. 19; and Hieronymus ad
   Matt. xxv. 6 (t. vii. 203, ed. Vallarsi): "Unde traditionem apostolicam
   permansisse, ut in die vigiliarum Paschae ante noctis dimidium populos
   dimittere non liceat, expectantes adventum Christi."

   [746] Festum dominicae resurrectionis; heorteanastasimos,
   kuriakemegale.

   [747] "Dominus resurrexit."--"Vere resurrexit."

   [748] Octava paschae, pascha clausum; antipascha. Octaveis applied in
   genera to the whole eight-days' observance of the great church
   festivals; then especially to the eighth or last day of the feast.

   [749] Dominica in albis. Also Quasimodogeniti, from the Introit for
   public worship, 1 Pet. ii. 2 ("Quasimodo geniti infantes,"" As new-born
   babes," &c.). Among the Greeks it was called kaine kuriake.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 79. The Time of the Easter Festival.

   Comp. the Literature in vol. i. at § 99; also L. Ideler: Handbuch der
   Chronologie. Berlin, 1826. Vol. ii. F. Piper: Geschichte des
   Osterfestes. Berlin, 1845. Hefele: Conciliengeschichte. Freiburg, 1855.
   Vol. i. p. 286 ff.

   The time of the Easter festival became, after the second century, the
   subject of long and violent controversies and practical confusions,
   which remind us of the later Eucharistic disputes, and give evidence
   that human passion and folly have sought to pervert the great facts and
   institutions of the New Testament from holy bonds of unity into torches
   of discord, and to turn the sweetest honey into poison, but, with all
   their efforts, have not been able to destroy the beneficent power of
   those gifts of God.

   These Paschal controversies descended into the present period, and
   ended with the victory of the Roman and Alexandrian practice of keeping
   Easter, not, like Christmas and the Jewish Passover, on a fixed day of
   the month, whatever day of the week it might be, but on a Sunday, as
   the day of the resurrection of our Lord. Easter thus became, with all
   the feasts depending on it, a movable feast; and then the different
   reckonings of the calendar led to many inconveniences and confusions.
   The exact determination of Easter Sunday is made from the first full
   moon after the vernal equinox; so that the day may fall on any Sunday
   between the 22d day of March and the 25th of April.

   The council of Arles in 314 had already decreed, in its first canon,
   that the Christian Passover be celebrated "uno die et uno tempore per
   omnem orbem," and that the bishops of Rome should fix the time. But as
   this order was not universally obeyed, the fathers of Nicaea proposed
   to settle the matter, and this was the second main object of the first
   ecumenical council in 325. The result of the transactions on this
   point, the particulars of which are not known to us, does not appear in
   the canons (probably out of consideration for the numerous
   Quartodecimanians), but is doubtless preserved in the two circular
   letters of the council itself and the emperor Constantine. [750] The
   feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated
   everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover,
   but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first
   vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition
   to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the
   Lord." We would," says the circular letter of Constantine in reference
   to the council of Nice, "we would have nothing in common with that most
   hostile people, the Jews; for we have received from the Redeemer
   another way of honoring God [the order of the days of the week], and
   harmoniously adopting this method, we would withdraw ourselves from the
   evil fellowship of the Jews. For what they pompously assert, is really
   utterly absurd: that we cannot keep this feast at all without their
   instruction .... It is our duty to have nothing in common with the
   murderers of our Lord." This bitter tone against Judaism runs through
   the whole letter.

   At Nicaea, therefore, the Roman and Alexandrian usage with respect to
   Easter triumphed, and the Judaizing practice of the Quartodecimanians,
   who always celebrated Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, became
   thenceforth a heresy. Yet that practice continued in many parts of the
   East, and in the time of Epiphanius, about a.d. 400, there were many,
   Quartodecimanians, who, as he says, were orthodox, indeed, in doctrine,
   but in ritual were addicted to Jewish fables, and built upon the
   principle: "Cursed is every one who does not keep his passover on the
   fourteenth of Nisan." [751] They kept the day with the Communion and
   with fasting till three o'clock. Yet they were divided into several
   parties among themselves. A peculiar offshoot of the Quartodecimanians
   was the rigidly ascetic Audians, who likewise held that the passover
   must be kept at the very same time (not after the same manner) with the
   Jews, on the fourteenth of Nisan, and for their authority appealed to
   their edition of the Apostolic Constitutions.

   And even in the orthodox church these measures did not secure entire
   uniformity. For the council of Nicaea, probably from prudence, passed
   by the question of the Roman and Alexandrian computation of Easter. At
   least the Acts contain no reference to it. [752] At all events this
   difference remained: that Rome, afterward as before, fixed the vernal
   equinox, the terminus a quo of the Easter full moon, on the 18th of
   March, while Alexandria placed it correctly on the 21st. It thus
   occurred, that the Latins, the very year after the Nicene council, and
   again in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, varied from the
   Alexandrians in the time of keeping Easter. On this account the council
   of Sardica, as we learn from the recently discovered Paschal Epistles
   of Athanasius, took the Easter question again in hand, and brought
   about, by mutual concessions, a compromise for the ensuing fifty years,
   but without permanent result. In 387 the difference of the Egyptian and
   the Roman Easter amounted to fully five weeks. Later attempts also to
   adjust the matter were in vain, until the monk Dionysius Exiguus, the
   author of our Christian calendar, succeeded in harmonizing the
   computation of Easter on the basis of the true Alexandrian reckoning;
   except that the Gallican and British Christians adhered still longer to
   the old custom, and thus fell into conflict with the Anglo-Saxon. The
   introduction of the improved Gregorian calendar in the Western church
   in 1582 again produced discrepancy; the Eastern and Russian church
   adhered to the Julian calendar, and is consequently now about twelve
   days behind us. According to the Gregorian calendar, which does not
   divide the months with astronomical exactness, it sometimes happens
   that the Paschal full moon is put a couple of hours too early, and the
   Christian Easter, as was the case in 1825, coincides with the Jewish
   Passover, against the express order of the council of Nicaea.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [750] Socrates: Hist. Eccl. i. 9; Theodoret: H. E. i. 10; Eusebius:
   Vita Const ii. 17. Comp. Hefele, l.c. i. p. 309 sqq.

   [751] Epiphanius, Haer. l.c. 1. Comp. Ex. xii. 15.

   [752] Hefele thinks, however (i. p. 313 f.), from an expression of
   Cyril of Alexandria and Leo I., that the Nicaenum (1) gave the
   Alexandrian reckoning the preference over the Roman; (2) committed to
   Alexandria the reckoning, to Rome the announcing, of the Easter term;
   but that this order was not duly observed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 80. The Cycle of Pentecost.

   The whole period of seven weeks from Easter to Pentecost bore a joyous,
   festal character. It was called Quinquagesima, or Pentecost in the
   wider sense, [753] and was the memorial of the exaltation of Christ at
   the right hand of the Father, His repeated appearances during the
   mysterious forty days, and His heavenly headship and eternal presence
   in the church. It was regarded as a continuous Sunday, and
   distinguished by the absence of all fasting and by standing in prayer.
   Quinquagesima formed a marked contrast with the Quadragesima which
   preceded. The deeper the sorrow of repentance had been in view of the
   suffering and dying Saviour, the higher now rose the joy of faith in
   the risen and eternally living Redeemer. This joy, of course, must keep
   itself clear of worldly amusements, and be sanctified by devotion,
   prayer, singing, and thanksgiving; and the theatres, therefore,
   remained closed through the fifty days. But the multitude of nominal
   Christians soon forgot their religious impressions, and sought to
   compensate their previous fasting with wanton merry-making.

   The seven Sundays after Easter are called in the Latin church,
   respectively, Quasimodo-geniti, Misericordia Domini, Jubilate, Cantate,
   Rogate, (or, Vocem jucunditatis), Exaudi, and Pentecoste. In the
   Eastern church the Acts of the Apostles are read at this season.

   Of the fifty festival days, the fortieth and the fiftieth were
   particularly prominent. The fortieth day after Easter, always a
   Thursday, was after the fourth century dedicated to the exaltation of
   Christ at the right hand of God, and hence named Ascension Day. [754]
   The fiftieth day, or the feast of Pentecost in the stricter sense,
   [755] was the kernel and culminating point of this festival season, as
   Easter day was of the Easter cycle. It was the feast of the Holy Ghost,
   who on this day was poured out upon the assembled disciples with the
   whole fulness of the accomplished redemption; and it was at the same
   time the birth-day of the Christian church. Hence this festival also
   was particularly prized for baptisms and ordinations. Pentecost
   corresponded to the Jewish feast of that name, which was primarily the
   feast of first-fruits, and afterward became also the feast of the
   giving of the law on Sinai, and in this twofold import was fulfilled in
   the outpouring of the Holy Ghost and the founding of the Christian
   church." Both revelations of the divine law," writes Jerome to Fabiola,
   "took place on the fiftieth day after the passover; the one on Sinai,
   the other on Zion; there the mountain was shaken, here the temple;
   there, amid flames and lightnings, the tempest roared and the thunder
   rolled, here, also with mighty wind, appeared tongues of fire; there
   the sound of the trumpet pealed forth the words of the law, here the
   cornet of the gospel sounded through the mouth of the apostles."

   The celebration of Pentecost lasted, at least ultimately, three days or
   a whole week, closing with the Pentecostal Octave, which in the Greek
   church (so early as Chrysostom) was called The Feast of all Saints and
   Martyrs, [756] because the martyrs are the seed and the beauty of the
   church. The Latin church, on the contrary, though not till the tenth
   century, dedicated the Sunday after Pentecost to the Holy Trinity, and
   in the later times of the Middle Age, further added to the festival
   part of the church year the feast of Corpus Christi, in celebration of
   the mystery of transubstantiation, on the Thursday after Trinity. It
   thus invested the close of the church year with a purely dogmatic
   import. Protestantism has retained the feast of Trinity, in opposition
   to the Antitrinitarians; but has, of course, rejected the feast of
   Corpus Christi.

   In the early church, Pentecost was the last great festival of the
   Christian year. Hence the Sundays following it, till Advent, were
   counted from Whitsunday. [757] The number of the Sundays in the second
   half of the church year therefore varies between twenty-seven and
   twenty-two, according to the time of Easter. In this part of the year
   we find even in the old lectionaries and sacramentaries some
   subordinate, feasts in memory of great men of the church; such as the
   feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, the founders of the church (June 29);
   the feast of the chief martyr, Laurentius, the representative of the
   church militant (August, 10); the feast of the archangel Michael, the
   representative of the church triumphant (September 29).
     __________________________________________________________________

   [753] Pentekoste. Comp. the author's Hist. of the Apost. Ch. § 54.

   [754] Dies ascensionis; heorte tes analepseos.

   [755] Dies pentecostes; pentekoste, hemera tou Pneumatos.

   [756] kuriake ton hagion panton marturesanton. The Western church kept
   a similar feast on the first of November, but not till the eighth
   century.

   [757] So in the Roman church even after the introduction of the Trinity
   festival. The Protestants, on the contrary, as far as they retained the
   ecclesiastical calendar (Lutherans, Anglicans, &c.), make the first
   Sunday after Pentecost the basis, and count the First, Second, Third
   Sunday after Trinity, instead of the First, Second, etc., Sunday after
   Whitsunday.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 81. The Exaltation of the Virgin Mariology.

   Canisius (R.C.): De Maria Virgine libri quinque. Ingolst. 1577.
   Lamberertini (R.C.): Comment. dum De J. Christi, matrisque ejus festis.
   Patav. 1751. Perrone (R.C.): De Immaculata B. V. Mariae conceptu. Rom.
   1848. (In defence of the new papal dogma of the sinless conception of
   Mary.) F. W. Genthe: Die Jungfrau Maria, ihre Evangelien u. ihre
   Wunder. Halle, 1852. Comp. also the elaborate article, "Maria, Mutter
   des Herrn," by Steitz, in Herzog's Protest. Real-Encycl. (vol. ix. p.
   74 ff.), and the article, "Maria, die heil. Jungfrau," by Reithmayr
   (R.C.) in Wetzer u. Welte's Kathol. Kirchenlex. (vi. 835 ff.); also the
   Eirenicon-controversy between Pusey and J. H. Newman, 1866.

   Into these festival cycles a multitude of subordinate feasts found
   their way, at the head of which stand the festivals of the holy Virgin
   Mary, honored as queen of the army of saints.

   The worship of Mary was originally only a reflection of the worship of
   Christ, and the feasts of Mary were designed to contribute to the
   glorifying of Christ. The system arose from the inner connection of the
   Virgin with the holy mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God;
   though certainly, with this leading religious and theological interest
   other motives combined. As mother of the Saviour of the world, the
   Virgin Mary unquestionably holds forever a peculiar position among all
   women, and in the history of redemption. Even in heaven she must stand
   peculiarly near to Him whom on earth she bore nine months under her
   bosom, and whom she followed with true motherly care to the cross. It
   is perfectly natural, nay, essential, to sound religious feeling, to
   associate with Mary the fairest traits of maidenly and maternal
   character, and to revere her as the highest model of female purity,
   love, and piety. From her example issues a silent blessing upon all
   generations, and her name and memory are, and ever will be, inseparable
   from the holiest mysteries and benefits of faith. For this reason her
   name is even wrought into the Apostles' Creed, in the simple and chaste
   words: "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary."

   The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with
   this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the
   wholesome Biblical limit, and transformed the mother of the Lord" [758]
   into a mother of God, the humble handmaid of the Lord" [759] into a
   queen of heaven, the "highly favored" [760] into a dispenser of favors,
   the "blessed among women" [761] into an intercessor above all women,
   nay, we may almost say, the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is
   nowhere in Holy Scripture excepted from the universal sinfulness, into
   a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. At first she was acquitted only of actual
   sin, afterward even of original; though the doctrine of the immaculate
   conception of the Virgin was long contested, and was not established as
   an article of faith in the Roman church till 1854. Thus the veneration
   of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary; and this took
   so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age, that,
   in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria, and dulia, and
   hyrerdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed over the worship of
   Christ. Hence in the innumerable Madonnas of Catholic art the human
   mother is the principal figure, and the divine child accessory. The
   Romish devotions scarcely utter a Pater Noster without an Ave Maria,
   and turn even more frequently and naturally to the compassionate,
   tender-hearted mother for her intercessions, than to the eternal Son of
   God, thinking that in this indirect way the desired gift is more sure
   to be obtained. To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal
   points of separation between the Graeco-Roman Catholicism and
   Evangelical Protestantism. It is one of the strongest expressions of
   the fundamental Romish error of unduly exalting the human factors or
   instruments of redemption, and obstructing, or rendering needless, the
   immediate access of believers to Christ, by thrusting in subordinate
   mediators. Nor can we but agree with nearly all unbiased historians in
   regarding the worship of Mary as an echo of ancient heathenism. It
   brings plainly to mind the worship of Ceres, of Isis, and of other
   ancient mothers of the gods; as the worship of saints and angels
   recalls the hero-worship of Greece and Rome. Polytheism was so deeply
   rooted among the people, that it reproduced itself in Christian forms.
   The popular religious want had accustomed itself even to female
   deities, and very naturally betook itself first of all to Mary, the
   highly favored and blessed mother of the divine-human Redeemer, as the
   worthiest object of adoration.

   Let us trace now the main features in the historical development of the
   Catholic Mariology and Mariolatry.

   The New Testament contains no intimation of any worship or festival
   celebration of Mary. On the one hand, Mary, is rightly called by
   Elizabeth, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, "the mother of the
   Lord" [762] --but nowhere "the mother of God," which is at least not
   entirely synonymous--and is saluted by her, as well as by the angel
   Gabriel, as "blessed among women;" [763] nay, she herself prophesies in
   her inspired song, which has since resounded through all ages of the
   church, that "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." [764]
   Through all the youth of Jesus she appears as a devout virgin, full of
   childlike innocence, purity, and humility; and the few traces we have
   of her later life, especially the touching scene at the cross, [765]
   confirm this impression. But, on the other hand, it is equally
   unquestionable, that she is nowhere in the New Testament excepted from
   the universal sinfulness and the universal need of redemption, and
   represented as immaculately holy, or as in any way an object of divine
   veneration. On the contrary, true to the genuine female character, she
   modestly stands back throughout the gospel history, and in the Acts and
   the Epistles she is mentioned barely once, and then simply as the
   "mother of Jesus;" [766] even her birth and her death are unknown. Her
   glory fades in holy humility before the higher glory of her Son. In
   truth, there are plain indications that the Lord, with prophetic
   reference to the future apotheosis of His mother according to the
   flesh, from the first gave warning against it. At the wedding in Cana
   He administered to her, though leniently and respectfully, a rebuke for
   premature zeal mingled perhaps with maternal vanity. [767] On a
   subsequent occasion he put her on a level with other female disciples,
   and made the carnal consanguinity subordinate to the spiritual kinship
   of the doing of the will of God. [768] The well-meant and in itself
   quite innocent benediction of an unknown woman upon His mother He did
   not indeed censure, but He corrected it with a benediction upon all who
   hear the word of God and keep it, and thus forestalled the deification
   of Mary by confining the ascription within the bounds of moderation.
   [769]

   In striking contrast with this healthful and sober representation of
   Mary in the canonical Gospels are the numerous apocryphal Gospels of
   the third and fourth centuries, which decorated the life of Mary with
   fantastic fables and wonders of every kind, and thus furnished a
   pseudo-historical foundation for an unscriptural Mariology and
   Mariolatry. [770] The Catholic church, it is true, condemned this
   apocryphal literature so early as the Decrees of Gelasius; [771] yet
   many of the fabulous elements of it--such as the names of the parents
   of Mary, Joachim (instead of Eli, as in Luke iii. 23) and Anna, [772]
   the birth of Mary in a cave, her education in the temple, and her mock
   marriage with the aged Joseph [773] --passed into the Catholic
   tradition.

   The development of the orthodox Catholic Mariology and Mariolatry
   originated as early as the second century in an allegorical
   interpretation of the history of the fall, and in the assumption of an
   antithetic relation of Eve and Mary, according to which the mother of
   Christ occupies the same position in the history of redemption as the
   wife of Adam in the history of sin and death. [774] This idea, so
   fruitful of many errors, is ingenious, but unscriptural, and an
   apocryphal substitute for the true Pauline doctrine of an antitypical
   parallel between the first and second Adam. [775] It tends to
   substitute Mary for Christ. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian,
   are the first who present Mary as the counterpart of Eve, as a "mother
   of all living" in the higher, spiritual sense, and teach that she
   became through her obedience the mediate or instrumental cause of the
   blessings of redemption to the human race, as Eve by her disobedience
   was the fountain of sin and death. [776] Irenaeus calls her also the
   "advocate of the virgin Eve," which, at a later day, is understood in
   the sense of intercessor. [777] On this account this father stands as
   the oldest leading authority in the Catholic Mariology; though with
   only partial justice; for he was still widely removed from the notion
   of the sinlessness of Mary, and expressly declares the answer of Christ
   in John ii. 4, to be a reproof of her premature haste. [778] In the
   same way Tertullian, Origen, Basil the Great, and even Chrysostom, with
   all their high estimate of the mother of our Lord, ascribe to her on
   one or two occasions (John ii. 3; Matt. xiii. 47) maternal vanity, also
   doubt and anxiety, and make this the sword (Luke ii. 35) which, under
   the cross, passed through her soul. [779] In addition to this
   typological antithesis of Mary and Eve, the rise of monasticism
   supplied the development of Mariology a further motive in the enhanced
   estimate of virginity, without which no true holiness could be
   conceived. Hence the virginity of Mary, which is unquestioned for the
   part of her life before the birth of Christ, came to be extended to her
   whole life, and her marriage with the aged Joseph to be regarded as a
   mere protectorate, and, therefore, only a nominal marriage. The
   passage, Matt. i. 25, which, according to its obvious literal meaning
   (the heosand prototokos [780] ), seems to favor the opposite view, was
   overlooked or otherwise explained; and the brothers of Jesus, [781] who
   appear fourteen or fifteen times in the gospel history and always in
   close connection with His mother, were regarded not as sons of Mary
   subsequently born, but either as sons of Joseph by a former marriage
   (the view of Epiphanius), or, agreeably to the wider Hebrew use of the
   term `acousins of Jesus (Jerome). [782] It was felt--and this feeling
   is shared by many devout Protestants--to be irreconcilable with her
   dignity and the dignity of Christ, that ordinary children should
   afterward proceed from the same womb out of which the Saviour of the
   world was born. The name perpetua virgo, aei parthenos, was thenceforth
   a peculiar and inalienable predicate of Mary. After the fourth century
   it was taken not merely in a moral sense, but in the physical also, as
   meaning that Mary conceived and produced the Lord clauso utero. [783]
   This, of course, required the supposition of a miracle, like the
   passage of the risen Jesus through the closed doors. Mary, therefore,
   in the Catholic view, stands entirely alone in the history of the world
   in this respect, as in others: that she was a married virgin, a wife
   never touched by her husband. [784]

   Epiphanius, in his seventy-eighth Heresy, combats the advocates of the
   opposite view in Arabia toward the end of the fourth century (367), as
   heretics under the title of Antidikomarianites, opposers of the dignity
   of Mary, i.e., of her perpetual virginity. But, on the other hand, he
   condemns, in the seventy-ninth Heresy, the contemporaneous sect of the
   Collyridians in Arabia, a set of fanatical women, who, as priestesses,
   rendered divine worship to Mary, and, perhaps in imitation of the
   worship of Ceres, offered little cakes (kollurides) to her; he claims
   adoration for God and Christ alone. Jerome wrote, about 383, with
   indignation and bitterness against Helvidius and Jovinian, who, citing
   Scripture passages and earlier church teachers, like Tertullian,
   maintained that Mary bore children to Joseph after the birth of Christ.
   He saw in this doctrine a desecration of the temple of the Holy Ghost,
   and he even compares Helvidius to Erostratus, the destroyer of the
   temple at Ephesus. [785] The bishop Bonosus of Sardica was condemned
   for the same view by the Illyrican bishops, and the Roman bishop
   Siricius approved the sentence, a.d. 392.

   Augustine went a step farther. In an incidental remark against
   Pelagius, he agreed with him in excepting Mary, "propter honorem
   Domini," from actual (but not from original) sin. [786] This exception
   he is willing to make from the sinfulness of the race, but no other. He
   taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate
   conception. He no doubt assumed, as afterward Bernard of Clairvaux and
   Thomas Aquinas, a sanctificatio in utero, like that of Jeremiah (Jer.
   i. 5) and John the Baptist (Luke i. 15), whereby, as those two men were
   fitted for their prophetic office, she in a still higher degree was
   sanctified by a special operation of the Holy Ghost before her birth,
   and prepared to be a pure receptacle for the divine Logos. The
   reasoning of Augustine backward from the holiness of Christ to the
   holiness of His mother was an important turn, which was afterward
   pursued to further results. The same reasoning leads as easily to the
   doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, though also, just as
   well, to a sinless mother of Mary herself, and thus upward to the
   beginning, of the race, to another Eve who never fell. Augustine's
   opponent, Pelagius, with his monastic, ascetic idea of holiness and his
   superficial doctrine of sin, remarkably outstripped him on this point,
   ascribing to Mary perfect sinlessness. But, it should be remembered,
   that his denial of original sin to all men, and his excepting of sundry
   saints of the Old Testament besides Mary, such as Abel, Enoch, Abraham,
   Isaac, Melchizedek, Samuel, Elijah, Daniel, from actual sin, [787] so
   that pantesin Rom. v. 12, in his view, means only a majority, weaken
   the honor he thus appears to confer upon the mother of the Lord. The
   Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won
   the victory on this point in the Roman church. [788]

   Notwithstanding this exalted representation of Mary, there appear no
   clear traces of a proper worship of Mary, as distinct from the worship
   of saints in general, until the Nestorian controversy of 430. This
   dispute formed an important turning-point not only in Christology, but
   in Mariology also. The leading interest in it was, without doubt, the
   connection of the virgin with the mystery of the incarnation. The
   perfect union of the divine and human natures seemed to demand that
   Mary might be called in some sense the mother of God, theotokos,
   Deipara; for that which was born of her was not merely the man Jesus,
   but the God-Man Jesus Christ. [789] The church, however, did, of
   course, not intend by that to assert that she was the mother of the
   uncreated divine essence--for this would be palpably absurd and
   blasphemous--nor that she herself was divine, but only that she was the
   human point of entrance or the mysterious channel for the eternal
   divine Logos. Athanasius and the Alexandrian church teachers of the
   Nicene age, who pressed the unity of the divine and the human in Christ
   to the verge of monophysitism, had already used this expression
   frequently and without scruple, [790] and Gregory Nazianzen even
   declares every one impious who denies its validity. [791] Nestorius, on
   the contrary, and the Antiochian school, who were more devoted to the
   distinction of the two natures in Christ, took offence at the predicate
   theotokos, saw in it a relapse into the heathen mythology, if not a
   blasphemy against the eternal and unchangeable Godhead, and preferred
   the expression Christotokos, mater Christi. Upon this broke out the
   violent controversy between him and the bishop Cyril of Alexandria,
   which ended in the condemnation of Nestorianism at Ephesus in 431.

   Thenceforth the theotokoswas a test of orthodox Christology, and the
   rejection of it amounted to the beginning or the end of all heresy. The
   overthrow of Nestorianism was at the same time the victory of
   Mary-worship. With the honor of the Son, the honor also of the Mother
   was secured. The opponents of Nestorius, especially Proclus, his
   successor in Constantinople ( 447), and Cyril of Alexandria ( 444),
   could scarcely find predicates enough to express the transcendent glory
   of the mother of God. She was the crown of virginity, the
   indestructible temple of God, the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity,
   the paradise of the second Adam, the bridge from God to man, the loom
   of the incarnation, the sceptre of orthodoxy; through her the Trinity
   is glorified and adored, the devil and demons are put to flight, the
   nations converted, and the fallen creature raised to heaven. [792] The
   people were all on the side of the Ephesian decision, and gave vent to
   their joy in boundless enthusiasm, amidst bonfires, processions, and
   illuminations.

   With this the worship of Mary, the mother of God, the queen of heaven,
   seemed to be solemnly established for all time. But soon a reaction
   appeared in favor of Nestorianism, and the church found it necessary to
   condemn the opposite extreme of Eutychianism or Monophysitism. This was
   the office of the council of Chalcedon in 451: to give expression to
   the element of truth in Nestorianism, the duality of nature in the one
   divine-human person of Christ. Nevertheless the theotokoswas expressly
   retained, though it originated in a rather monophysite view. [793]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [758] He meter tou kuriou, Luke i. 43.

   [759] He doule kuriou, Luke i. 38.

   [760] Kecharitomene (pass. part.), Luke i. 28.

   [761] Eulogemene en gunaixin, Luke i. 28.

   [762] Luke i. 43:He meter tou kuriou mou.

   [763] Luke i. 28: Chaire, kecharitomene;hokurios metasou,
   eulogemenesuengunaixin. So Elizabeth, Luke i. 42: Eulogemene su en
   gunaixi, kai eulogemenos ho karpos tes koilias sou.

   [764] Luke i. 48: Apo tou nun makariousi me pasai hai geneai.

   [765] John xix. 25-27.

   [766] Acts i. 14.

   [767] John ii. 4: Ti emoi kai soi, gunai; Comp. the commentators on the
   passage. The expression "woman" is entirely respectful, comp. John xix.
   21; xx. 13, 15. But the "What have I to do with thee?" is, like the
   Hebrewkly ylhm (Josh. xxii, 24; 2 Sam.xvi. 10; xix. 22; 1 Kings xvii
   18; 2 Kings iii. 13; 2 Chron. xxxv. 21), a rebuke and censure of undue
   interference; comp. Matt. viii. 29; Luke viii. 28; Mark i. 24 (also the
   classics). Meyer, the best grammatical expositor, observes on gunai:
   "That Jesus did not say meter, flowed involuntarily from the sense of
   His higher wonder-working position, whence He repelled the interference
   of feminine weakness, which here met Him even in His mother."

   [768] Matt. xii. 46-50.

   [769] Luke xi 27, 28. The menounge is emphatic, utique, but also
   corrective, imo vero; so here, and Rom. ii. 20; x. 18. Luther inexactly
   translates simply, ja; the English Bible more correctly, yea rather.
   Meyer ad loc.: "Jesus does not forbid the congratulation of His mother,
   but He applies the predicate makarios as the woman had done, to an
   outward relation, but to an ethical category, in which any one might
   stand, so that the congratulation of His mother as mother is thereby
   corrected." Van Oosterzee strikingly remarks in his Commentary on Luke
   (in Lange's Bibelwerk): " The congratulating woman is the prototype of
   all those, who in all times have honored the mother of the Lord above
   her Son, and been guilty of Mariolatry. If the Lord even here
   disapproves this honoring of His mother, where it moves in so modest
   limits, what judgment would He pass upon the new dogma of Pio Nono, on
   which a whole new Mariology is built?"

   [770] Here belongs, above all, the Protevangelium Jacobi Minoris, which
   dates from the third or fourth century; then the Evangelium de
   nativitate S. Mariae; the Historia de nativitate Mariae et de infantia
   Salvatoris; the Evangelium infantiae Servatoris; the Evang. Josephi
   fabri lignarii. Comp. Thilo's Cod. Apocryphus N. Ti. Lips. 1832, and
   the convenient digest of this apocryphal history in R. Hofmann's Leben
   Jesu nach den Apocryphen. Leipz. 1851, pp. 5-117.

   [771] Decret de libris apocr. Coll Cone. ap. Harduin, tom. ii. p. 941.
   Comp. Pope Innocent I., Ep. ad Exuperium Tolosanum, c. 7, where the
   Protevang. Jacobi is rejected and condemned.

   [772] Epiphanius also, Haer. 78, no. 17, gives the parents of Jesus
   these names. To reconcile this with Luke iii: 23, the Roman theologians
   suppose, that Eli, or Heli, is an abbreviation of Heliakim, and that
   this is the same with Joakim, or Joachim.

   [773] According to the apocryphal Historia Josephi he was already
   ninety years old; according to Epiphanius at least eighty; and was
   blessed with children by a former marriage. According to Origen, also,
   and Eusebius, and Gregory of Nyssa, Joseph was an aged widower. Jerome,
   on the contrary, makes him, like Mary, a pure coelebs, and says of him:
   "Mariae quam putatus est habuisse, custos potius fait quam maritus;"
   consequently he must "virginem mansisse cum Maria, qui pater Domini
   meruit adpellari." Contr. Helvid. c. 19.

   [774] Rom. v. 12 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 22. But Paul ignores here Eve and Mary
   altogether.

   [775] In later times in the Latin church even the Ave with which
   Gabriel saluted the Virgin, was received as the converse of the name of
   Eva; though the Greek chaire Luke i. 28, admits no such far-fetched
   accommodation. In like manner the bruising of the serpent's head, Gen.
   iii. 15, was applied to Mary instead of Christ, because the Vulgate
   wrongly translates the Hebrew sh'r kphyshy'vh, ipsaconteret caput
   tuum;"while the LXX. rightly refers the 'vh to ?rz as masc., autos and
   likewise all Protestant versions of the Bible.

   [776] Irenaeus: Adv. haer. lib. iii. c. 22, § 4: "Consequenter autem et
   Maria virgo obediens invenitur, dicens: 'Ecce ancilla tua, Domine, fiat
   mihi secundum verbum tuum'(Luke i. 38); Eva vero disobediens: non
   obedivit enim, quum adhuc esset virgo. Quemadmodum illa virum quidem
   habens Adam, virgo tamen adhuc existens ... inobediens facta, et sibi
   et universo generihumano causa facta est mortis: sic et Maria habens
   praedestinatum virum, et tamen virgo obediens, et sibi et universo
   generi humano causa facta est salutis .... Sic autem et Evae
   inobedientiea nodus solutionem accepit per obedientiam Mariae. Quod
   enim allgavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per
   fidem." Comp. v. 19, § 1. Similar statements occur in Justin M.
   (Dial.c.Tryph. 100), Tertullian(De carne Christi, c. 17), Epiphanius
   (Haer. 78, 18), Ephraem (Opp. ii. 318; iii. 607), Jerome(Ep. xxii. ad
   Eustoch. 21: "Mors per Evam, vita per Mariam "). Even St.
   Augustinecarries this parallel between the first and second Eve as far
   as any of the fathers, in a sermon De Adam et Eva et sancta Maria, not
   heretofore quoted, published from Vatican Manuscripts in Angelo Mai's
   Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, tom. i. Rom. 1852, pp. 1-4. Here, after a most
   exaggerated invective against woman (whom he calls latrocinium vitae,
   suavis mors, blanda percussio, interfectio lenis, pernicies delicata,
   malum libens, sapida jugulatio, omnium calamitas rerum--and all that in
   a sermon!), goes on thus to draw a contrast between Eve and Mary: "O
   mulier ista exsecranda, dum decepit! o iterum beata colenda, dum
   salvat! Plus enim contulit gratiae, quam doloris. Licet ipsa docuerit
   mortem, ipsa tamen genuit dominum salvatorem. Inventa est ergo mors per
   mulierem, vita per virginem .... Ergo malum per feminam, immo et per
   feminam bonum: quia si per Evam cecidimus, magis stamus per Mariam: per
   Evam sumus servituti addicti effeti per Mariam liberi: Eva nobis
   sustulit diuturnitatem, aeternitatem nobis Maria condonavit: Eva nos
   damnari fecit per arboris pomum, absolvit Maria per arboris
   sacramentum, quia et Christus in ligno pependit ut fructus" (c. 3, pp.
   2 and 3). And in conclusion: "Haec mater est humani generis, auctor
   illa salutis. Eva nos educavit, roboravit et Maria: per Evam cotidie
   crescimus, regnamus in aeternum per Mariam: per Evam deducti ad terram,
   ad coelum elevati per Mariam" (c. 4, p. 4). Comp. Aug Sermo 232, c. 2.

   [777] Adv. haer. v. cap. 19, § 1: "Quemadmodum illa [Eva] seducta est
   ut effugeret Deum ... sic haec [Maria] suasa est obedire Deo, uti
   virginis Evae virgo Maria fieret advocata [probably a translation of
   sunegoros or parakletos]. Et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus
   humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, aequa lance disposita,
   virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam." p 415

   [778] Adv. haer. iii. cap. 16, § 7 (not. c. 18, as Gieseler, i. 2, p.
   277, wrongly cited it): "... Dominus repellus ejus intempestivam
   festinationem, dixit: 'Quid mihi et tibi est mulier?'" So even
   Chrysostom, Hom. 21 in Joh n. 1.

   [779] Tertullian, De carne Christi, c. 7; Origen, in Luc. Hom. 17;
   Basil, Ep. 260; Chrysostom, Hom. 44 in Matt, and Hom. 21 in Joh ; Cyril
   Alex. In Joann. l. xii.

   [780] The reading prototokos in Matt. i. 25 is somewhat doubtful, but
   it is certainly genuine in Luke ii. 7.

   [781] They are always called adelphoi (four in number, James, Joseph or
   Joses, Simon, and Jude) and adelphai (at least two), Matt. xii. 46, 47;
   xiii. 55, 56; Mark iii. 31, 32; vi. 3; John vii. 3, 5, 10; Acts i. 14,
   etc., but nowhere anepsioi; Mark a term well known to the N. T.
   vocabulary (Col. iv. 10), or sungeneis, kinsmen (Mark vi. 4; Luke i.
   36, 58; ii. 44; John viii. 26; Acts x. 24), or huioites adelphes,
   sister's sons (Acts xxiii. 26). This speaks strongly against the
   cousin-theory.

   [782] Comp. on this whole complicated question of the brothers of
   Christ and the connected question of James, the author's treatise on
   Jakobus und die Brüder des Herrn, Berlin, 1842, his Hist. of the
   Apostolic Church, 2d ed. § 95 (p. 383 of the Leipzig ed.; p. 378 of the
   English), and his article on the Brethren of Christ in the Bibliotheca
   Sacra of Andover for Oct. 1864

   [783] Tertullian(De carne Christi, c. 23: Virgo quantum a viro; non
   virgo quantum a partu), Clement of Alex. (Strom. vii. p. 889), and even
   Epiphanius (Haer. lxxviii. § 19, where it is said of Christ:Houtos
   estinalethos anoigonmetranmetros), were still of another opinion on
   this point. Ambroseof Milan is the first, within my knowledge, to
   propound this miraculous view (Epist. 42 ad Siricium). He appeals to
   Ezek. xliv. 1-3, taking the east gate of the temple, which must remain
   closed because Jehovah passed through it, to refer typically to
   Mary."Quos est haec porta, nisi Maria? Ideo clausa, quia virgo. Porta
   igitur Maria, per quam Christus intravit in hunc mundum." De inst.
   Virg. c. 8 (Op. ii. 262). So Ambrosealso in his hymn, " A solis ortus
   cardine,"and Jerome, Adv. Pelag. l. ii. 4. The resurrection of Jesus
   from the closed tomb and the entrance of the risen Jesus through the
   closed doors, also, was often used as an analogy. The fathers assume
   that the stone which sealed the Saviour's tomb, was not rolled away
   till after the resurrection, and they draw a parallel between the
   sealed tomb from which He rose to everlasting life, and the closed gate
   of the Virgin's womb from which He was born to earthly life. Jerome,
   Comment. in Matth. xxvii. 60: " Potest novum sepulchrum Mariae
   virginalem uterum demonstrare." Gregory the Great: " Ut ex clauso
   Virginis utero natus, sic ex clauso sepulchro resurrexit in quo nemo
   conditus fuerat, et postquam resurrexisset, se per clausas fores in
   conspectum apostolorum induxit." Subsequently the catholic view,
   consistently, removed every other incident of an ordinary birth, such
   as pain and the flow of blood. While Jeromestill would have Jesus born
   under all " naturae contumeliis,"John Damascenus says (De orth. fide,
   iv. 14): " Since this birth was not preceded by any [carnal] pleasure,
   it could also have been followed by no pangs." Here, too, a passage of
   prophecy must serve as a proof: Is. lxvi. 7: " Before she travailed,
   she brought forth,"&c.

   [784] Augustine(De s. virg. c. 6): "Sola Maria et spiritu et corpore
   mater et virgo."

   [785] Helvidiusadduces the principal exegetical arguments for his view;
   the passages on the Lord's brothers, and especially Matt. i. 25,
   pressing the words eginoske and heos. Jeromeremarks, on the contrary,
   that the knowing by no means necessarily denotes nuptial intercourse,
   and that till does not always fix a limit; e.g., Matt. xxviii. 20 and 1
   Cor. xv. 25. In like manner Helvidiuslaid stress on the expression
   prototokos, used of Christ, Matt. i. 25; Luke ii. 7; to which
   Jeromerightly replies that, according to the law, every son who first
   opens the womb is called the first-born, Ex. xxxiv. 19, 20; Num. xviii.
   15 ff., whether followed by other children or not. The "brothers of
   Jesus" he explains to be cousins, sons of Alpheus and the sister of the
   Virgin Mary, who likewise was called Mary (as he wrongly infers from
   John xix. 25). The main argument of Jerome, however, is the ascetic
   one: the overvaluation of celibacy. Joseph was probably only "custos,"
   not "maritus Mariae" cap. 19), and their marriage only nominal. He
   would not indeed deny that there are pious souls among married women
   and widows, but they are such as have abstained or ceased from living
   in conjugal intercourse (cap. 21). Helvidius, conversely, ascribed
   equal moral dignity to the married and the single state. So Jovinian.
   Comp. § 43.

   [786] De Nat. et grat. contra Pelag. c. 36, § 42: "Excepta sancto
   virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de
   peccatis agitur, haberi volo guaestionem ... hac ergo virgine excepta,
   si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas (whom Peligius takes for sinless] ...
   congregare possemus et interrogare, utrum essent sine peccato, quid
   fuisse responsuros putamus: utrum hoc quod iste [Pelagius] dicit, an
   quod Joannes apostolus" [1 John i. 8]? In other places, however,
   Augustinesays, that the flesh of Mary came "de peccati propagine" (De
   Gen. ad Lit. x. c. 18), and that, in virtue of her descent from Adam,
   she was subject to death also as the consequence of sin ("Maria ex Adam
   mortua propter peocatum," Enarrat. in Ps. 34, vs. 12). This was also
   the view of Anselm of Canterbury ( 1109), in his Cur Deus homo, ii. 16,
   where he says of Christ that he assumed sinless manhood "de massa
   peccatrice, id est de humano genere, quod totum infectum errat
   peccato," and of Mary: "Virgo ipsa, unde assumptus est, est in
   iniquitatibus concepta, et in peccatis concepit eam mater ejus, et cum
   originali peccato nata est, quoniam et ipsa in Adam peccavit in quo
   omnes peccaverunt." Jerometaught the universal sinfulness without any
   exception, Adv. Pelag. ii. 4.

   [787] Augustine, De Nat. et grat. cap. 36.

   [788] The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was, for the
   first time after Pelagius, plainly brought forward in 1140 at Lyons,
   but was opposed by Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 174), and thence continued
   an avowed issue between the Franciscans and Dominicans, till it gained
   the victory in the papal bull of 1854.

   [789] The expression theotokos does not occur in the Scriptures, and is
   at best easily misunderstood. The nearest to it is the expression of
   Elizabeth:He meter tou kuriou mou, Luke i. 43, and the words of the
   angel Gabriel: To gennommenon [ek sou, de te, al. in te, is not
   sufficiently attested, and is a later explanatory addition] hagio
   nklethesetai huios Theou, Luke i. 35. But with what right the
   distinguished Roman Catholic professor Reithmayr, in the Catholic
   Encyclop. above quoted, vol. vi. p. 844, puts into the mouth of
   Elizabeth the expression, "mother of God my Lord;" I cannot see; for
   there is no such variation in the reading of Luke i. 43.

   [790] The earliest witnesses for theotokos are Origen (according to
   Socrates, H. E. vii. 32), Eusebius (Vita Const iii. 43), Cyril of
   Jerus. (Catech. x. 146), Athanasius (Orat. iii. c. Arian. c. 14, 83),
   Didymus (De Trinit. i. 31, 94; ii 4, 133), and GregoryNaz. (Orat. li.
   738). But it should be remembered that Hesychius, presbyter in
   Jerusalem ( 343) calls David, as an ancestor of Christ, theopator
   (Photius, Cod. 275), and that in many apocrypha James is called
   adelphotheos (Gieseler, i. ii. 134). It is also worthy of note that
   Augustine( 430), with all his reverence for Mary, never calls her mater
   Dei or Deipara; on the contrary, he seems to guard against it, Tract.
   viii. in Ev. Joann. c. 9. "Secundum quod Deus erat [Christus] matrem
   non habebat."

   [791] Orat. li. 738: Ei tioutheotokon ten Marian hupolambanei, choris
   esti tes theotetos .

   [792] Comp. Cyril's Encom. in S. M. Deiparam and Homil. Ephes., and the
   Orationes of Proclus in Gallandi, vol. ix. Similar extravagant
   laudation had already been used by Ephraim Syrus ( 378) in his work, De
   laudibus Dei genetricis, and in the collection of prayers which bore
   his name, but are in part doubtless of later origin, in the 3d volume
   of his works, pp. 524-552, ed. Benedetti and S. Assemani.

   [793] Ek Marias tes parthenon, tes theotokou.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 82. Mariolatry.

   Thus much respecting the doctrine of Mary. Now the corresponding
   practice. From this Mariology follows Mariolatry. If Mary is, in the
   strict sense of the word, the mother of God, it seems to follow as a
   logical consequence, that she herself is divine, and therefore an
   object of divine worship. This was not, indeed, the meaning and purpose
   of the ancient church; as, in fact, it never asserted that Mary was the
   mother of the essential, eternal divinity of the Logos. She was, and
   continues to be, a created being, a human mother, even according to the
   Roman and Greek doctrine. But according to the once prevailing
   conception of her peculiar relation to deity, a certain degree of
   divine homage to Mary, and some invocation of her powerful intercession
   with God, seemed unavoidable, and soon became a universal practice.

   The first instance of the formal invocation of Mary occurs in the
   prayers of Ephraim Syrus ( 379), addressed to Mary and the saints, and
   attributed by the tradition of the Syrian church, though perhaps in
   part incorrectly, to that author. The first more certain example
   appears in Gregory Nazianzen ( 389), who, in his eulogy on Cyprian,
   relates of Justina that she besought the virgin Mary to protect her
   threatened virginity, and at the same time disfigured her beauty by
   ascetic self-tortures, and thus fortunately escaped the amours of a
   youthful lover (Cyprian before his conversion). [794] But, on the other
   hand, the numerous writings of Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and
   Augustine, furnish no example of an invocation of Mary. Epiphanius even
   condemned the adoration of Mary, and calls the practice of making
   offerings to her by the Collyridian women, blasphemous and dangerous to
   the soul. [795] The entire silence of history respecting the worship of
   the Virgin down to the end of the fourth century, proves clearly that
   it was foreign to the original spirit of Christianity, and belongs
   among the many innovations of the post-Nicene age.

   In the beginning of the fifth century, however, the worship of saints
   appeared in full bloom, and then Mary, by reason of her singular
   relation to the Lord, was soon placed at the head, as the most blessed
   queen of the heavenly host. To her was accorded the hyperdulia
   (huperdouleia)--to anticipate here the later scholastic distinction
   sanctioned by the council of Trent--that is, the highest degree of
   veneration, in distinction from mere dulia (douleia), which belongs to
   all saints and angels, and from latria (latreia), which, properly
   speaking, is due to God alone. From that time numerous churches and
   altars were dedicated to the holy Mother of God, the perpetual Virgin;
   among them also the church at Ephesus in which the anti-Nestorian
   council of 431 had sat. Justinian I., in a law, implored her
   intercession with God for the restoration of the Roman empire, and on
   the dedication of the costly altar of the church of St. Sophia he
   expected all blessings for church and empire from her powerful prayers.
   His general, Narses, like the knights in the Middle Age, was unwilling
   to go into battle till he had secured her protection. Pope Boniface IV.
   in 608 turned the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres:
   the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods. Subsequently even
   her images (made after an original pretending to have come from Luke)
   were divinely worshipped, and, in the prolific legends of the
   superstitious Middle Age, performed countless miracles, before some of
   which the miracles of the gospel history grow dim. She became almost
   coördinate with Christ, a joint redeemer, invested with most of His own
   attributes and acts of grace. The popular belief ascribed to her, as to
   Christ, a sinless conception, a sinless birth, resurrection and
   ascension to heaven, and a participation of all power in heaven and on
   earth. She became the centre of devotion, cultus, and art, the popular
   symbol of power, of glory, and of the final victory of catholicism over
   all heresies. [796] The Greek and Roman churches vied throughout the
   Middle Age (and do so still) in the apotheosis of the human mother with
   the divine-human child Jesus in her arms, till the Reformation freed a
   large part of Latin Christendom from this unscriptural semi-idolatry
   and concentrated the affection and adoration of believers upon the
   crucified and risen Saviour of the world, the only Mediator between God
   and man.

   A word more: respecting the favorite prayer to Mary, the angelic
   greeting, or the Ave Maria, which in the Catholic devotion runs
   parallel to the Pater Noster. It takes its name from the initial words
   of the salutation of Gabriel to the holy Virgin at the annunciation of
   the birth of Christ. It consists of three parts:

   (1) The salutation of the angel (Luke i. 28):
   Ave Maria, gratiae plena, Dominus tecum!

   (2) The words of Elizabeth (Luke i. 42):
   Benedicta tu in mulieribus [797] , et benedictus fructus ventris tui,
   Jesus.

   (3) The later unscriptural addition, which contains the prayer proper,
   and is offensive to the Protestant and all sound Christian feeling:
   Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora
   mortis. Amen.

   Formerly this third part, which gave the formula the character of a
   prayer, was traced back to the anti-Nestorian council of Ephesus in
   431, which sanctioned the expression mater Dei, or Dei genitrix
   (theotokos).But Roman archaeologists [798] now concede that it is a
   much later addition, made in the beginning of the sixteenth century
   (1508), and that the closing words, nunc et in hora mortis, were added
   even after that time by the Franciscans. But even the first two parts
   did not come into general use as a standing formula of prayer until the
   thirteenth century. [799] From that date the Ave Maria stands in the
   Roman church upon a level with the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles'
   Creed, and with them forms the basis of the rosary.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [794] Ten parthenon Marian hiketeuousa boethenai (Virginem Mariam
   supplex obsecrans) partheno kinduneuouse. Orat. xviii de St. Cypriano,
   tom. i. p. 279, ed. Paris. The earlier and authentic accounts
   respecting Cyprian know nothing of any such courtship of Cyprian and
   intercession of Mary.

   [795] Adv. Haer. Collyrid.: En time esto Maria, ho de Pater ...
   proskuneistho, ten Marian medeis proskuneito.

   [796] The Greek church even goes so far as to substitute, in the
   collects, the name of Mary for the name of Jesus, and to offer
   petitions in the name of the Theotokos.

   [797] 96 .These words, according to the textus receptus, had been
   already spoken also by the angel, Luke i. 28: Eulogemenesu en gunaixin,
   though they are wanting here in important manuscripts, and are omitted
   by Tischendorf and Meyer asa later addition, from i. 42.

   [798] Mast, for example, in Wetzer und Welte's Kathol. Kirchenlexikon,
   vol. i. p, 563

   [799] Peter Damiani (who died a.d. 1072) first mentions, as a solitary
   case, that a clergyman daily prayed the words: "Ave Maria, gratia
   plena! Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus." The first order on
   the subject was issued by Odo, bishop of Paris, after 1196 (comp.
   Mansi, xxii. 681): "Exhortentur populum semper presbyteri ad dicendam
   orationem dominicam et credo in Deum et salutationem beatae Virginis."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 83. The Festivals of Mary.

   This mythical and fantastic, and, we must add, almost pagan and
   idolatrous Mariology impressed itself on the public cultus in a series
   of festivals, celebrating the most important facts and fictions of the
   life of the Virgin, and in some degree running parallel with the
   festivals of the birth, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

   1. The Annunciation of Mary [800] commemorates the announcement of the
   birth of Christ by the archangel Gabriel, [801] and at the same time
   the conception of Christ; for in the view of the ancient church Mary
   conceived the Logos (Verbum) through the ear by the word of the angel.
   Hence the festival had its place on the 25th of March, exactly nine
   months before Christmas; though in some parts of the church, as Spain
   and Milan, it was celebrated in December, till the Roman practice
   conquered. The first trace of it occurs in Proclus, the opponent and
   successor of Nestorius in Constantinople after 430; then it appears
   more plainly in several councils and homilies of the seventh century.

   2. The Purification of Mary [802] or Candlemas, in memory of the
   ceremonial purification of the Virgin, [803] forty days after the birth
   of Jesus, therefore on the 2d of February (reckoning from the 25th of
   December); and at the same time in memory of the presentation of Jesus
   in the temple and his meeting of Simeon and Anna. [804] This, like the
   preceding, was thus originally as much a festival of Christ as of Mary,
   especially in the Greek church. It is supposed to have been introduced
   by Pope Gelasius in 494, though by some said not to have arisen till
   542 under Justinian I., in consequence of a great earthquake and a
   destructive pestilence. Perhaps it was a Christian transformation of
   the old Roman lustrations or expiatory sacrifices (Februa, Februalia),
   which from the time of Numa took place in February, the month of
   purification or expiation. [805] To heathen origin is due also the use
   of lighted tapers, with which the people on this festival marched,
   singing, out of the church through the city. Hence the name Candlemas.
   [806]

   3. The Ascension, or Assumption rather, of Mary [807] is celebrated on
   the 15th of August. The festival was introduced by the Greek emperor
   Mauritius (582-602); some say, under Pope Gelasius ( 496). In Rome,
   after the ninth century, it is one of the principal feasts, and, like
   the others, is distinguished with vigil and octave.

   It rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation.

   The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers
   respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of
   inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was
   attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke
   ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide
   whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings
   de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth
   century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of
   Tours ( 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of
   the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ
   and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following
   morning [808] her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there
   united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further
   embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also,
   even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle.

   Still the resurrection and ascension of Mary are in the Roman church
   only a matter of "devout and probable opinion," not an article of
   faith; [809] and a distinction is made between the ascensio of Christ
   (by virtue of His divine nature) and the assumptio of Mary (by the
   power of grace and merit).

   But since Mary, according to the most recent Roman dogma, was free even
   from original sin, and since death is a consequence of sin, it should
   strictly follow that she did not die at all, and rise again, but, like
   Enoch and Elijah, was carried alive to heaven.

   In the Middle Age--to anticipate briefly--yet other festivals of Mary
   arose: the Nativity of Mary, [810] after a.d. 650; the Presentation of
   Mary, [811] after the ninth century, founded on the apocryphal
   tradition of the eleven years' ascetic discipline of Mary in the temple
   at Jerusalem; the Visitation of Mary [812] in memory of her visit to
   Elizabeth; a festival first mentioned in France in 1247, and limited to
   the western church; and the festival of the Immaculate Conception,
   [813] which arose with the doctrine of the sinless conception of Mary,
   and is interwoven with the history of that dogma down to its official
   and final promulgation by Pope Pius IX. in 1854.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [800] Emera aspasmou, or Charitismou, euangelismou, ensarkoseos; festum
   annunciationis, s. incarnationis, conceptionis Domini.

   [801] Luke i. 26-39.

   [802] Festum purificationis Mariae, orpraesentationis Domini, Simeonis
   et Hannae occursus; hupapante, or hupante, or hupantesis tou Kuriou
   (the meeting of the Lord with Simeon and Anna in the temple).

   [803] Comp. Luke ii. 22; Lev. xi 2-7. The apparent incongruity of
   Mary's need of purification with the prevalent Roman Catholic doctrine
   of her absolute purity and freedom from the ordinary accompaniments of
   parturition (even, according to Paschasius Radbert, from the flow of
   blood) gave rise to all kinds of artificial explanations.
   Augustinederived it from the consuetudo legis rather than the
   necessitas expiandi purgandique peccati, and places it on a par with
   the baptism of Christ. (Quaest. in Heptateuchum, l. iii. c. 40.)

   [804] Luke ii. 22-38.

   [805] Februarius, from Februo, the purifying god; like Januarius, from
   the god Janus. Februare = purgare to purge. February was originally the
   last month.

   [806] Festum candelarum sive luminum.

   [807] koimesis, or analepsis tes hagias Theotokou, festum assumptionis.

   [808] According to later representations, as in the three discourses of
   John Damascenus on this subject, her body rested, like the body of the
   Lord, three days uncorrupted in the grave.

   [809] The Greek council of Jerusalem in 1672, which was summoned
   against the Calvinists, officially proclaimed it, and thus almost
   raised it to the authority of a dogma.

   [810] Nativitas, natalis B. M. V.; genethlion, &c.

   [811] Festum presentationis.

   [812] Festum visitationis.

   [813] Festum immaculatae conceptionis B. M.V.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 84. The Worship of Martyrs and Saints.

   I. Sources: The Memorial Discourses of Basil the Great on the martyr
   Mamas (a shepherd in Cappadocia, about 276), and on the forty martyrs
   (soldiers, who are said to have suffered in Armenia under Licinius in
   320); of Gregory Naz. on Cyprian ( 248), on Athanasius ( 372), and on
   Basil ( 379); of Gregory Of Nyssa on Ephraim Syrus ( 378), and on the
   megalomartyr Theodorus; of Chrysostom on Bernice and Prosdoce, on the
   Holy Martyrs, on the Egyptian Martyrs, on Meletius of Antioch; several
   homilies of Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Peter Chrysologus
   Caesarius, &c.; Jerome against Vigilantius. The most important passages
   of the fathers on the veneration of saints are conveniently collected
   in: The Faith of Catholics on certain points of controversy, confirmed
   by Scripture and attested by the Fathers. By Berington and Kirk,
   revised by Waterworth." 3d ed. 1846, vol. iii. pp. 322-416.

   II. The later Literature: (1) On the Roman Catholic side: The Acta
   Sanctorum of the Bollandists, thus far 58 vols. fol. (1643-1858, coming
   down to the 22d of October). Theod. Ruinart: Acta primorum martyrum
   sincera et selecta. Par. 1689 (confined to the first four centuries).
   Laderchio: S. patriarcharum et prophetarum, confessorum, cultus
   perpetuus, etc. Rom. 1730. (2) On the Protestant side: J. Dallaeus:
   Adversus Latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto traditionem. Genev.
   1664. Isaac Taylor: Ancient Christianity. 4th ed. Lond. 1844, vel. ii.
   p. 173 ff. ("Christianized demonolatry in the fourth century.")

   The system of saint-worship, including both Hagiology and Hagiolatry,
   developed itself at the same time with the worship of Mary; for the
   latter is only the culmination of the former.

   The New Testament is equally ignorant of both. The expression hagioi,
   sancti, saints, is used by the apostles not of a particular class, a
   spiritual aristocracy of the church, but of all baptized and converted
   Christians without distinction; because they are separated from the
   world, consecrated to the service of God, washed from the guilt of sin
   by the blood of Christ, and, notwithstanding all their remaining
   imperfections and sins, called to perfect holiness. The apostles
   address their epistles to "the saints" i.e., the Christian believers,
   "at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus," &c. [814]

   After the entrance of the heathen masses into the church the title came
   to be restricted to bishops and councils and to departed heroes of the
   Christian faith, especially the martyrs of the first three centuries.
   When, on the cessation of persecution, the martyr's crown, at least
   within the limits of the Roman empire, was no longer attainable,
   extraordinary ascetic piety, great service to the church, and
   subsequently also the power of miracles, were required as indispensable
   conditions of reception into the Catholic calendar of saints. The
   anchorets especially, who, though not persecuted from without,
   voluntarily crucified their flesh and overcame evil spirits, seemed to
   stand equal to the martyrs in holiness and in claims to veneration. A
   tribunal of canonization did not yet exist. The popular voice commonly
   decided the matter, and passed for the voice of God. Some saints were
   venerated only in the regions where they lived and died; others enjoyed
   a national homage; others, a universal.

   The veneration of the saints increased with the decrease of martyrdom,
   and with the remoteness of the objects of reverence. "Distance lends
   enchantment to the view;" but "familiarity" is apt "to breed contempt."
   The sins and faults of the heroes of faith were lost in the bright haze
   of the past, while their virtues shone the more, and furnished to a
   pious and superstitious fancy the richest material for legendary poesy.

   Almost all the catholic saints belong to the higher degrees of the
   clergy or to the monastic life. And the monks were the chief promoters
   of the worship of saints. At the head of the heavenly chorus stands
   Mary, crowned as queen by the side of her divine Son; then come the
   apostles and evangelists, who died a violent death, the protomartyr
   Stephen, and the martyrs of the first three centuries; the patriarchs
   and prophets also of the Old Covenant down to John the Baptist; and
   finally eminent hermits and monks, missionaries, theologians, and
   bishops, and those, in general, who distinguished themselves above
   their contemporaries in virtue or in public service. The measure of
   ascetic self-denial was the measure of Christian virtue. Though many of
   the greatest saints of the Bible, from the patriarch Abraham to Peter,
   the prince of the apostles, lived in marriage, the Romish ethics, from
   the time of Ambrose and Jerome, can allow no genuine holiness within
   the bonds of matrimony, and receives only virgines and some few vidui
   and viduae into its spiritual nobility. [815] In this again the close
   connection of saint-worship with monasticism is apparent.

   To the saints, about the same period, were added angels as objects of
   worship. To angels there was ascribed in the church from the beginning
   a peculiar concern with the fortunes of the militant church, and a
   certain oversight of all lands and nations. But Ambrose is the first
   who expressly exhorts to the invocation of our patron angels, and
   represents it as a duty. [816] In favor of the guardianship and
   interest of angels appeal was rightly made to several passages of the
   Old and New Testaments: Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; xii. 1; Matt. xviii. 10;
   Luke xv. 7; Heb. i. 14; Acts xii. 15. But in Col. ii. 18, and Rev. xix.
   10; xxii. 8, 9, the worship of angels is distinctly rebuked.

   Out of the old Biblical notion of guardian angels arose also the idea
   of patron saints for particular countries, cities, churches, and
   classes, and against particular evils and dangers. Peter and Paul and
   Laurentius became the patrons of Rome; James, the patron of Spain;
   Andrew, of Greece; John, of theologians; Luke, of painters;
   subsequently Phocas, of seamen; Ivo, of jurists; Anthony, a protector
   against pestilence; Apollonia, against tooth-aches; &c.

   These different orders of saints and angels form a heavenly hierarchy,
   reflected in the ecclesiastical hierarchy on earth. Dionysius the
   Areopagite, a fantastical Christian Platonist of the fifth-century,
   exhibited the whole relation of man to God on the basis of the
   hierarchy; dividing the hierarchy into two branches, heavenly and
   earthly, and each of these again into several degrees, of which every
   higher one was the mediator of salvation to the one below it.

   These are the outlines of the saint-worship of our period. Now to the
   exposition and estimate of it, and then the proofs.

   The worship of saints proceeded originally, without doubt, from a pure
   and truly Christian source, to wit: a very deep and lively sense of the
   communion of saints, which extends over death and the grave, and
   embraces even the blessed in heaven. It was closely connected with love
   to Christ, and with gratitude for everything great and good which he
   has done through his instruments for the welfare of posterity. The
   church fulfilled a simple and natural duty of gratitude, when, in the
   consciousness of unbroken fellowship with the church triumphant, she
   honored the memory of the martyrs and confessors, who had offered their
   life for their faith, and had achieved victory for it over all its
   enemies. She performed a duty of fidelity to her own children, when she
   held up for admiration and imitation the noble virtues and services of
   their fathers. She honored and glorified Christ Himself when she
   surrounded Him with an innumerable company of followers, contemplated
   the reflection of His glory in them, and sang to His praise in the
   Ambrosian Te Deum:


   "The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee;

   The goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee;

   The noble army of Martyrs praise thee;

   The holy church throughout all the world doth acknowledge thee;

   The Father, of an infinite majesty;

   Thine adorable, true, and only Son;

   Also the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.

   Thou art the King of glory, O Christ;

   Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.

   When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the
   Virgin's womb; [817]

   When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the
   kingdom of heaven to all believers."

   In the first three centuries the veneration of the martyrs in general
   restricted itself to the thankful remembrance of their virtues and the
   celebration of the day of their death as the day of their heavenly
   birth. [818] This celebration usually took place at their graves. So
   the church of Smyrna annually commemorated its bishop Polycarp, and
   valued his bones more than gold and gems, though with the express
   distinction: "Christ we worship as the Son of God; the martyrs we love
   and honor as disciples and successors of the Lord, on account of their
   insurpassable love to their King and Master, as also, we wish to be
   their companions and fellow disciples." [819] Here we find this
   veneration as yet in its innocent simplicity.

   But in the Nicene age it advanced to a formal invocation of the saints
   as our patrons (patroni) and intercessors (intercessores, mediatores)
   before the throne of grace, and degenerated into a form of refined
   polytheism and idolatry. The saints came into the place of the
   demigods, Penates and Lares, the patrons of the domestic hearth and of
   the country. As once temples and altars to the heroes, so now churches
   and chapels [820] came to be built over the graves of the martyrs, and
   consecrated to their names (or more precisely to God through them).
   People laid in them, as they used to do in the temple of Aesculapius,
   the sick that they might be healed, and hung in them, as in the temples
   of the gods, sacred gifts of silver and gold. Their graves were, as
   Chrysostom says, move splendidly adorned and more frequently visited
   than the palaces of kings. Banquets were held there in their honor,
   which recall the heathen sacrificial feasts for the welfare of the
   manes. Their relics were preserved with scrupulous care, and believed
   to possess miraculous virtue. Earlier, it was the custom to pray for
   the martyrs (as if they were not yet perfect) and to thank God for
   their fellowship and their pious example. Now such intercessions for
   them were considered unbecoming, and their intercession was invoked for
   the living. [821]

   This invocation of the dead was accompanied with the presumption that
   they take the deepest interest in all the fortunes of the kingdom of
   God on earth, and express it in prayers and intercessions. [822] This
   was supposed to be warranted by some passages of Scripture, like Luke
   xv. 10, which speaks of the angels (not the saints) rejoicing over the
   conversion of a sinner, and Rev. viii. 3, 4, which represents an angel
   as laying the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the
   throne of God. But the New Testament expressly rebukes the worship of
   the angels (Col. ii. 18; Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9), and furnishes not a
   single example of an actual invocation of dead men; and it nowhere
   directs us to address our prayers to any creature. Mere inferences from
   certain premises, however plausible, are, in such weighty matters, not
   enough. The intercession of the saints for us was drawn as a probable
   inference from the duty of all Christians to pray for others, and the
   invocation of the saints for their intercession was supported by the
   unquestioned right to apply to living saints for their prayers, of
   which even the apostles availed themselves in their epistles.

   But here rises the insolvable question: How can departed saints hear at
   once the prayers of so many Christians on earth, unless they either
   partake of divine omnipresence or divine omniscience? And is it not
   idolatrous to clothe creatures with attributes which belong exclusively
   to Godhead? Or, if the departed saints first learn from the omniscient
   God our prayers, and then bring them again before God with their
   powerful intercessions, to what purpose this circuitous way? Why not at
   once address God immediately, who alone is able, and who is always
   ready, to hear His children for the sake of Christ?

   Augustine felt this difficulty, and concedes his inability to solve it.
   He leaves it undecided, whether the saints (as Jerome and others
   actually supposed) are present in so many places at once, or their
   knowledge comes through the omniscience of God, or finally it comes
   through the ministry of angels. [823] He already makes the distinction
   between latreia, or adoration due to God alone, and the invocatio
   (douleia) of the saints, and firmly repels the charge of idolatry,
   which the Manichaean Faustus brought against the catholic Christians
   when he said: "Ye have changed the idols into martyrs, whom ye worship
   with the like prayers, and ye appease the shades of the dead with wine
   and flesh." Augustine asserts that the church indeed celebrates the
   memory of the martyrs with religious solemnity, to be stirred up to
   imitate them, united with their merits, and supported by their prayers,
   [824] but it offers sacrifice and dedicates altars to God alone. Our
   martyrs, says he, are not gods; we build no temples to our martyrs, as
   to gods; but we consecrate to them only memorial places, as to departed
   men, whose spirits live with God; we build altars not to sacrifice to
   the martyrs, but to sacrifice with them to the one God, who is both
   ours and theirs. [825]

   But in spite of all these distinctions and cautions, which must be
   expected from a man like Augustine, and acknowledged to be a wholesome
   restraint against excesses, we cannot but see in the martyr-worship, as
   it was actually practised, a new form of the hero-worship of the
   pagans. Nor can we wonder in the least. For the great mass of the
   Christian people came, in fact, fresh from polytheism, without thorough
   conversion, and could not divest themselves of their old notions and
   customs at a stroke. The despotic form of government, the servile
   subjection of the people, the idolatrous homage which was paid to the
   Byzantine emperors and their statues, the predicates divina, sacra,
   coelestia, which were applied to the utterances of their will, favored
   the worship of saints. The heathen emperor Julian sarcastically
   reproached the Christians with reintroducing polytheism into
   monotheism, but, on account of the difference of the objects, revolted
   from the Christian worship of martyrs and relics, as from the "stench
   of graves and dead men's bones." The Manichaean taunt we have already
   mentioned. The Spanish presbyter Vigilantius, in the fifth century,
   called the worshippers of martyrs and relics, ashes-worshippers and
   idolaters, [826] and taught that, according to the Scriptures, the
   living only should pray with and for each other. Even some orthodox
   church teachers admitted the affinity of the saint-worship with
   heathenism, though with the view of showing that all that is good in
   the heathen worship reappears far better in the Christian. Eusebius
   cites a passage from Plato on the worship of heroes, demi-gods, and
   their graves, and then applies it to the veneration of friends of God
   and champions of true religion; so that the Christians did well to
   visit their graves, to honor their memory there, and to offer their
   prayers. [827] The Greeks, Theodoret thinks, have the least reason to
   be offended at what takes place at the graves of the martyrs; for the
   libations and expiations, the demi-gods and deified men, originated
   with themselves. Hercules, Aesculapius, Bacchus, the Dioscuri, and the
   like, are deified men; consequently it cannot be a reproach to the
   Christians that they--not deify, but--honor their martyrs as witnesses
   and servants of God. The ancients saw nothing censurable in such
   worship of the dead. The saints, our helpers and patrons, are far more
   worthy of such honor. The temples of the gods are destroyed, the
   philosophers, orators, and emperors are forgotten, but the martyrs are
   universally known. The feasts of the gods are now replaced by the
   festivals of Peter, Paul, Marcellus, Leontius, Antonins, Mauricius, and
   other martyrs, not with pagan pomp and sensual pleasures, but with
   Christian soberness and decency. [828]

   Yet even this last distinction which Theodoret asserts, sometimes
   disappeared. Augustine laments that in the African church banqueting
   and revelling were daily practised in honor of the martyrs, [829] but
   thinks that this weakness must be for the time indulged from regard to
   the ancient customs of the pagans.

   In connection with the new hero-worship a new mythology also arose,
   which filled up the gaps of the history of the saints, and sometimes
   even transformed the pagan myths of gods and heroes into Christian
   legends. [830] The superstitious imagination, visions, and dreams, and
   pious fraud famished abundant contributions to the Christian legendary
   poesy.

   The worship of the saints found eloquent vindication and encouragement
   not only, in poets like Prudentius (about 405) and Paulinus of Nola
   (died 431), to whom greater freedom is allowed, but even in all the
   prominent theologians and preachers of the Nicene and post-Nicene age.
   It was as popular as monkery, and was as enthusiastically commended by
   the leaders of the church in the East and West.

   The two institutions, moreover, are closely connected and favor each
   other. The monks were most zealous friends of saint-worship in their
   own cause. The church of the fifth century already went almost as far
   in it as the Middle Age, at all events quite as far as the council of
   Trent; for this council does not prescribe the invocation of the
   saints, but confines itself to approving it as "good and useful" (not
   as necessary) on the ground of their reigning with Christ in heaven and
   their intercession for us, and expressly remarks that Christ is our
   only, Redeemer and Saviour. [831] This moderate and prudent statement
   of the doctrine, however, has not yet removed the excesses which the
   Roman Catholic people still practise in the worship of the saints,
   their images, and their relics. The Greek church goes even further in
   theory than the Roman; for the confession of Peter Mogilas (which was
   subscribed by the four Greek patriarchs in 1643, and again sanctioned
   by the council of Jerusalem in 1672), declares it duty and propriety
   (chreos) to implore the intercession (mesiteia) of Mary and the saints
   with God for us.

   We now cite, for proof and further illustration, the most important
   passages from the church fathers of our period on this point. In the
   numerous memorial discourses of the fathers, the martyrs are loaded
   with eulogies, addressed as present, and besought for their protection.
   The universal tone of those productions is offensive to the Protestant
   taste, and can hardly be reconciled with evangelical ideas of the
   exclusive and all-sufficient mediation of Christ and of justification
   by pure grace without the merit of works. But it must not be forgotten
   that in these discourses very much is to be put to the account of the
   degenerate, extravagant, and fulsome rhetoric of that time. The best
   church fathers, too, never separated the merits of the saints from the
   merits of Christ, but considered the former as flowing out of the
   latter.

   We begin with the Greek fathers. Basil the Great calls the forty
   soldiers who are said to have suffered martyrdom under Licinius in
   Sebaste about 320, not only a "holy choir," an "invincible phalanx,"
   but also "common patrons of the human family, helpers of our prayers
   and most mighty intercessors with God." [832]

   Ephraim Syrus addresses the departed saints, in general, in such words
   as these: "Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, pray to
   the Saviour for me, that I through Christ may be delivered from him who
   assaults me from day to day;" and the mother of a martyr: "O holy,
   true, and blessed mother, plead for me with the saints, and pray: 'Ye
   triumphant martyrs of Christ, pray for Ephraim, the least, the
   miserable,' that I may find grace, and through the grace of Christ may
   be saved."

   Gregory of Nyssa asks of St. Theodore, whom he thinks invisibly present
   at his memorial feast, intercessions for his country, for peace, for
   the preservation of orthodoxy, and begs him to arouse the apostles
   Peter and Paul and John to prayer for the church planted by them (as if
   they needed such an admonition!). He relates with satisfaction that the
   people streamed to the burial place of this saint in such multitudes
   that the place looked like an ant hill. In his Life of St. Ephraim, he
   tells of a pilgrim who lost himself among the barbarian posterity of
   Ishmael, but by the prayer, "St. Ephraim, help me!" [833] and the
   protection of the saint, happily found his way home. He himself thus
   addresses him at the close: "Thou who standest at the holy altar, and
   with angels servest the life-giving and most holy Trinity, remember us
   all, and implore for us the forgiveness of sins and the enjoyment of
   the eternal kingdom." [834]

   Gregory Nazianzen is convinced that the departed Cyprian guides and
   protects his church in Carthage more powerfully by his intercessions
   than he formerly did by his teachings, because he now stands so much
   nearer the Deity; he addresses him as present, and implores his favor
   and protection. [835] In his eulogy on Athanasius, who was but a little
   while dead, he prays: "Look graciously down upon us, and dispose this
   people to be perfect worshippers of the perfect Trinity; and when the
   times are quiet, preserve us--when they are troubled, remove us, and
   take us to thee in thy fellowship."

   Even Chrysostom did not rise above the spirit of the time. He too is an
   eloquent and enthusiastic advocate of the worship of the saints and
   their relics. At the close of his memorial discourse on Sts. Bernice
   and Prosdoce--two saints who have not even a place in the Roman
   calendar--he exhorts his hearers not only on their memorial days but
   also on other days to implore these saints to be our protectors: "For
   they have great boldness not merely during their life but also after
   death, yea, much greater after death. [836] For they now bear the
   stigmata of Christ [the marks of martyrdom], and when they show these,
   they can persuade the King to anything." He relates that once, when the
   harvest was endangered by excessive rain, the whole population of
   Constantinople flocked to the church of the Apostles, and there elected
   the apostles Peter and Andrew, Paul and Timothy, patrons and
   intercessors before the throne of grace. [837] Christ, says he on Heb.
   i. 14, redeems us as Lord and Master, the angels redeem us as
   ministers.

   Asterius of Amasia calls the martyr Phocas, the patron of mariners, "a
   pillar and foundation of the churches of God in the world, the most
   renowned of the martyrs, who draws men of all countries in hosts to his
   church in Sinope, and who now, since his death, distributes more
   abundant nourishment than Joseph in Egypt."

   Among the Latin fathers, Ambrose of Milan is one of the first and most
   decided promoters of the worship of saints. We cite a passage or two.
   "May Peter, who so successfully weeps for himself, weep also for us,
   and turn upon us the friendly look of Christ. [838] The angels, who are
   appointed to guard us, must be invoked for us; the martyrs, to whose
   intercession we have claim by the pledge of their bodies, must be
   invoked. They who have washed away their sins by their own blood, may
   pray for our sins. For they are martyrs of God, our high priests,
   spectators of our life and our acts. We need not blush to use them as
   intercessors for our weakness; for they also knew the infirmity of the
   body when they gained the victory over it." [839]

   Jerome disputes the opinion of Vigilantius, that we should pray for one
   another in this life only, and that the dead do not hear our prayers,
   and ascribes to departed saints a sort of omnipresence, because,
   according to Rev. xiv. 4, they follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
   [840] He thinks that their prayers are much more effectual in heaven
   than they were upon earth. If Moses implored the forgiveness of God for
   six hundred thousand men, and Stephen, the first martyr, prayed for his
   murderers after the example of Christ, should they cease to pray, and
   to be heard, when they are with Christ?

   Augustine infers from the interest which the rich man in hell still had
   in the fate of his five surviving brothers (Luke xvi. 27), that the
   pious dead in heaven must have even far more interest in the kindred
   and friends whom they have left behind. [841] He also calls the saints
   our intercessors, yet under Christ, the proper and highest Intercessor,
   as Peter and the other apostles are shepherds under the great chief
   Shepherd. [842] In a memorial discourse on Stephen, he imagines that
   martyr, and St. Paul who stoned him, to be present, and begs them for
   their intercessions with the Lord with whom they reign. [843] He
   attributes miraculous effects, even the raising of the dead, to the
   intercessions of Stephen. [844] But, on the other hand, he declares, as
   we have already observed, his inability to solve the difficult question
   of the way in which the dead can be made acquainted with our wishes and
   prayers. At all events, in Augustine's practical religion the worship
   of the saints occupies a subordinate place. In his "Confessions" and
   "Soliloquies" he always addresses himself directly to God, not to Mary
   nor to martyrs.

   The Spanish poet Prudentius flees with prayers and confessions of sin
   to St. Laurentius, and considers himself unworthy to be heard by Christ
   Himself. [845]

   The poems of Paulinus of Nola are full of direct prayers for the
   intercessions of the saints, especially of St. Felix, in whose honor he
   erected a basilica, and annually composed an ode, and whom he calls his
   patron, his father, his lord. He relates that the people came in great
   crowds around the wonder-working relics of this saint on his memorial
   day, and could not look on them enough.

   Leo the Great, in his sermons, lays great stress on the powerful
   intercession of the apostles Peter and Paul, and of the Roman martyr
   Laurentius. [846]

   Pope Gregory the Great, at the close of our period, went much farther.

   According to this we cannot wonder that the Virgin Mary and the saints
   are interwoven also in the prayers of the liturgies, [847] and that
   their merits and intercession stand by the side of the merits of Christ
   as a ground of the acceptance of our prayers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [814] Comp. Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; xxvi. 10; Rom. i. 7; xii. 13; xv. 25,
   26; 1 Cor. i. 2; vi. 1; Eph. i. 1, 15, 18; iv. 12; Phil. i. 1; iv. 21,
   22; Rev. xiii. 7, 10, &c.

   [815] To reconcile this perverted view with the Bible, the Roman
   tradition arbitrarily assumes that Peter separated from his wife after
   his conversion; whereas Paul, so late as the year 57, expressly
   presupposes the opposite, and claims for himself the right to take with
   him a sister as a wife on his missionary tours (adelphen gunaika
   periagein), like the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and
   Cephas. 1 Cor. ix. 5. Married saints, like St. Elisabeth of Hungary and
   St. Louis of France, are rare exceptions.

   [816] De viduis c. 9: "Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, qui nobis ad
   praesidium dati sunt." Origen had previously commended the invocation
   of angels.

   [817] "Non horruisti Virginis uterum." The translation in the American
   Episcopal Liturgy has softened this expression thus: "Thou didst humble
   thyself to be born of a Virgin."

   [818] Natalitia, genethlia.

   [819] In the Epistle of the church of Smyrna De Martyr. Polycarpi, cap.
   17 (Patres-Apost. ed. Dressel, p. 404): Touton men gar huion onta tou
   Theou proskunoumen; tous de marturas , hos mathetas kai mimetas tou
   kuriou agapomen axios , k. t. l

   [820] Memoriae, marturia.

   [821] Augustine, Serm. 159, 1 (al. 17): "Injuria est pro martyre orare,
   cujus nos debemus orationibus commendari." Serm. 284, 5: "Pro
   martyribus non orat [ecclesia], sed eorum potius orationibus se
   commendat." Serm. 285, 5: "Pro aliis fidelibus defunctis oratur [to
   wit, for the souls in purgatory still needing purification]; pro
   martyribus non oratur; tam enim perfecti exierunt, ut non sint suscepti
   nostri, sed advocati." Yet Augustineadds the qualification: "Neque hoc
   in se, sed in illo cui capiti perfecta membra cohaeserunt. Ille est
   enim vere advocatus unus, qui interpellat pro nobis, sedens ad dexteram
   Patris: sed advocatus unus, sicut et pastor unus." When the grateful
   intercessions for the departed saints and martyrs were exchanged for
   the invocation of their intercession, the old formula: "Annue nobis,
   Domine, ut animae famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio," was changed
   into the later: "Annue nobis, quaesumus, Domine, ut intercessione beati
   Leonis haec nobis prosit oblatio." But instead of praying for the
   saints, the Catholic church now prays for the souls in purgatory.

   [822] Ambrose, De viduis, c. 9, calls the martyrs "nostri praesules et
   speculatores (spectatores) vitae actuumque nostrorum."

   [823] De cura pro mortuis (a.d. 421), c. 16. In another place he
   decidedly rejects the first hypothesis, because otherwise he himself
   would be always surrounded by his pious mother, and because in Isa.
   lxiii. 16 it is said: "Abraham is ignorant of us."

   [824] "Et ad excitandam imitationem, et ut mentis eorum consocietur,
   atque orationibus adjuvetur." Contra Faustum l. 20, n. 21.

   [825] De Civit. Dei, xxii. 10: "Nobis Martyres non sunt dii: quia unum
   eundemque Deum et nostrum scimus et Martyrum. Nec tamen miraculis, quae
   per Memorias nostrorum Martyrum fiunt, ullo modo comparanda sunt
   miracula, quae facta per templa perhibentur illorum. Verum si qua
   similia videntur, sicut a Moyse magi Pharaonis, sic eorum dii victi
   sunt a Martyribus nostris .... Martyribus nostris non templa sicut
   diis, sed Memorias sicut hominibus mortuis, quorum apud Deum vivunt
   spiritus, fabricamus; nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus
   Martyribus, sed uni Deo et Martyrum et nostro sacrificium [corpus
   Christi] immolamus."

   [826] Cinerarios and idololatrae.

   [827] In his Praeparat. Evangelica, xiii. cap. 11, p, 663. Comp.
   Demostr. Evang. iii. § 3, p. 107.

   [828] Theodoret, Graec. affect. curatio. Disp. viii. (Ed. Schulz, iv.
   p. 902 sq.)

   [829] "Commessationes et ebrietates in honorem etiam beatissimorum
   Martyrum." Ep. 22 and 29.

   [830] Thus, e.g., the fate of the Attic king's son Hippolytus, who was
   dragged to death by horses on the sea shore, was transferred to the
   Christian martyr Hippolytus, of the beginning of the third century. The
   martyr Phocas, a gardener at Sinope in Pontus, became the patron of all
   mariners, and took the place of Castor and Pollux. At the daily meals
   on shipboard, Phocas had his portion set out among the rest, as an
   invisible guest, and the proceeds of the sale of these portions was
   finally distributed among the poor as a thank-offering for the
   prosperous voyage.

   [831] Conc. Trid. Sess. xxv.: "Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes
   orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offere;bonum atque utile esse
   suppliciter eos invocare et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Filium
   eius Jesum Christum, qui solus noster redemptor et salvator est, ad
   eorum orationes, opem auxiliumque confugere."

   [832] Basil. M. Hom. 19, in XL. Martyres, § 8: O choros hagios, o
   suntagma hieron, o sunapismos arhrhages, o koinoi phulakes tou genous
   ton anthropon (Ocommunes generis humani custodes), agathoi koinonoi
   phrontidon, deeseos sunergoi, presbeutaidunatotatoi (legati apud Deum
   potentissimi), asteres tes oikoumenes, anthe ton ekklesion, humas ouch
   he ge katekrupsen, all ouranos hupedexato.

   [833] Agie Ephraim, baetheimoi.

   [834] Aitoumenos hemin hamartematon aphesin, aioniou te basileias
   apolausin. De vita Ephraem. p. 616 (tom. iii.).

   [835] Su de hemas epopteusis anothen hileos, kai ton hemeteron
   diexagois logon kai bion, k. t.l. Orat. 18 in laud. Cypr. p. 286.

   [836] Parakalomen autas, axiomen genesthai prostatidas hemon? pollen
   gar echousin parrhesian ouchi zosai monon, alla kai teleutesasai; kai
   pollo mallon teleutesasai. Opp. tom. ii. 770.

   [837] Contra ludos et theatra, n. 1, tom. vi. 318.

   [838] Hexaem. l. v. cap. 25, § 90: "Fleat pro nobis Petrus, qui pro se
   bene flevit, et in nos pia Christi ora convertat. Approperet Jesu
   Domini passio, quae quotidie delicta nostra condonat et munus
   remissionis operatur."

   [839] De viduis, c. 9: "Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, qui nobis ad
   praesidium dati sunt; martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam
   corporis pignore patrocinium vindicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare
   nostris, qui proprio sanguine etiam si qua habuerunt peccata laverunt.
   Isti enim sunt Dei martyres, nostri prae sules, speculatores vitae
   actuumque nostrorum," etc. Ambrosegoes farther than the council of
   Trent, which does not command the invocation of the saints, but only
   commends it, and represents it not as duty, but only as privilege. See
   the passage already cited, p. 437.

   [840] Adv. Vigilant. n. 6: "Si agnus ubique, ergo et hi, qui cum agno
   sunt, ubique esse credendi sunt." So the heathen also attributed
   ubiquity to their demons. Hesiodus, Opera et dies, v. 121 sqq.

   [841] Epist. 259, n. 5.

   [842] Sermo 285, n. 5.

   [843] Sermo 317, n. 5: "Ambo modo sermonem nostrum auditis; ambo pro
   nobis orate ... orationibus suis commendent nos."

   [844] Serm. 324.

   [845] Hymn. ii. in hon. S. Laurent. vss. 570-584: "Indignus agnosco et
   scio, Quem Christus ipse exaudiat; --- Sed per patronos martyres Potest
   medelam consequi."

   [846] "Cuius oratione," says he of the latter, "et patrocinio adjuvari
   nos sine cessatione confidimus." Serm. 85 in Natal. S. Laurent c. 4.

   [847] E.g., the Liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, St. Basil, St.
   Chrysostom, the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril, and the Roman Liturgy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 85. Festivals of the Saints.

   The system of saint-worship, like that of the worship of Mary, became
   embodied in a series of religious festivals, of which many had only a
   local character, some a provincial, some a universal. To each saint a
   day of the year, the day of his death, or his heavenly birthday, was
   dedicated, and it was celebrated with a memorial oration and exercises
   of divine worship, but in many cases desecrated by unrestrained
   amusements of the people, like the feasts of the heathen gods and
   heroes.

   The most important saints' days which come down from the early church,
   and bear a universal character, are the following:

   1. The feast of the two chief apostles Peter and Paul, [848] on the
   twenty-ninth of June, the day of their martyrdom. It is with the Latins
   and the Greeks the most important of the feasts of the apostles, and,
   as the homilies for the day by Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose,
   Augustine, and Leo the Great show, was generally introduced as early as
   the fourth century

   2. Besides this, the Roman church has observed since the fifth century
   a special feast in honor of the prince of the apostles and for the
   glorification of the papal office: the feast of the See of Peter [849]
   on the twenty-second of February, the day on which, according to
   tradition, he took possession of the Roman bishopric. With this there
   was also an Antiochan St. Peter's day on the eighteenth of January, in
   memory of the supposed episcopal reign of this apostle in Antioch. The
   Catholic liturgists dispute which of these two feasts is the older.
   After Leo the Great, the bishops used to keep the Natales. Subsequently
   the feast of the Chains of Peter [850] was introduced in memory of the
   chains which Peter wore, according to Acts xii. 6, under Herod at
   Jerusalem, and, according to the Roman legend, in the prison at Rome
   under Nero.

   3. The feast of John, the apostle and evangelist, on the twenty-seventh
   of December, has already been mentioned in connection with the
   Christmas cycle. [851]

   4. Likewise the feast of the protomartyr Stephen, on the twenty-sixth
   of December, after the fourth century. [852]

   5. The feast of John the Baptist, the last representative of the saints
   before Christ. This was, contrary to the general rule, a feast of his
   birth, not his martyrdom, and, with reference to the birth festival of
   the Lord on the twenty-fifth of December, was celebrated six months
   earlier, on the twenty-fourth of June, the summer solstice. This was
   intended to signify at once his relation to Christ and his well-known
   word: "He must increase, but I must decrease." He represented the
   decreasing sun of the ancient covenant; Christ, the rising sun of the
   new. [853] In order to celebrate more especially the martyrdom of the
   Baptist, a feast of the Beheading of John, [854] on the twenty-ninth of
   August, was afterward introduced; but this never became so important
   and popular as the feast of his birth.

   6. To be just to all the heroes of the faith, the Greek church, after
   the fourth century, celebrated a feast of All Saints on the Sunday
   after Pentecost (the Latin festival of the Trinity). [855] The Latin
   church, after 610, kept a similar feast, the Festum Omnium Sanctorum,
   on the first of November; but this did not come into general use till
   after the ninth century.

   7. The feast of the Archangel Michael, [856] the leader of the hosts of
   angels, and the representative of the church triumphant, [857] on the
   twenty-ninth of September. This owes its origin to some miraculous
   appearances of Michael in the Catholic legends. [858] The worship of
   the angels developed itself simultaneously with the worship of Mary and
   the saints, and churches also were dedicated to angels, and called
   after their names. Thus Constantine the Great built a church to the
   archangel Michael on the right bank of the Black Sea, where the angel,
   according to the legend, appeared to some ship-wrecked persons and
   rescued them from death. Justinian I. built as many as six churches to
   him. Yet the feast of Michael, which some trace back to Pope Gelasius
   I., a.d. 493, seems not to have become general till after the ninth
   century.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [848] Natalis apostolorum Petri et Pauli.

   [849] Festum cathedrae Petri.

   [850] Festum catenarum Petri, commonly Petri ad vincula, on the first
   of August. According to the legend, the Herodian Peter's-chain, which
   the empress Eudoxia, wife of Theodosius II., discovered on a pilgrimage
   in Jerusalem, and sent as a precious relic to Rome, miraculously united
   with the Neronian Peter's-chain at Rome on the first contact, so that
   the two have since formed only one holy and inseparable chain!

   [851] Comp. § 77, volume 3

   [852] · Ibid.

   [853] Comp. John iii. 30. This interpretation is given by Augustine,
   Serm. 12 in Nat. Dom.: "In nativitate Christi dies crescit, in Johannis
   nativitate decrescit. Profectum plane facit dies, quum mundi Salvator
   oritur; defectum patitur, quum ultimus prophetarum generatur."

   [854] Festum decollationis S. Johannis B.

   [855] This Sunday is therefore called by the Greeks the Martyrs' and
   Saints' Sunday, he kuriake ton hagion panton, or ton hagion kai
   marturon. We have a homily of Chrysostomon it: Enkomioneis tous hagious
   pantas tous enholo to kosmo marturesantes, or De martyribus totius
   orbis. Hom. lxxiv. Opera, tom. ii. 711 sqq.

   [856] Festum S. Michaelis, archangeli.

   [857] Rev. xii. 7-9; comp. Jude, vs. 9.

   [858] Comp. Augusti, Archaeologie, i. p. 585. Michael, e.g., in a
   pestilence in Rome in the seventh century, is said to have appeared as
   a deliverer on the Tomb of Hadrian (Moles Hadriani, or Mausoleo di
   Adriano), so that the place received the name of Angel's Castle
   (Castello di S. Angelo). It lies, as is well known, at the great bridge
   of the Tiber, and is used as a fortress.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 86. The Christian Calendar. The Legends of the Saints. The Acta
   Sanctorum.

   This is the place for some observations on the origin and character of
   the Christian calendar with reference to its ecclesiastical elements,
   the catalogue of saints and their festivals.

   The Christian calendar, as to its contents, dates from the fourth and
   later centuries; as to its form, it comes down from classical
   antiquity, chiefly from the Romans, whose numerous calendars contained,
   together with astronomical and astrological notes, tables also of civil
   and religious festivals and public sports. Two calendars of Christian
   Rome still extant, one of the year 354, the other of the year 448,
   [859] show the transition. The former contains for the first time the
   Christian week beginning with Sunday, together with the week of heathen
   Rome; the other contains Christian feast days and holidays, though as
   yet very few, viz., four festivals of Christ and six martyr days. The
   oldest purely Christian calendar is a Gothic one, which originated
   probably in Thrace in the fourth century. The fragment still extant
   [860] contains thirty-eight days for November and the close of October,
   among which seven days are called by the names of saints (two from the
   Bible, three from the church universal, and two from the Gothic
   church).

   There are, however, still earlier lists of saints' days, according to
   the date of the holiday; the oldest is a Roman one of the middle of the
   fourth century, which contains the memorial days of twelve bishops of
   Rome and twenty-four martyrs, together with the festival of the birth
   of Christ and the festival of Peter on the twenty-second of February.

   Such tables are the groundwork of the calendar and the martyrologies.
   At first each community or province had its own catalogue of feasts,
   hence also its own calendar. Such local registers were sometimes called
   diptycha [861] (diptucha), because they were recorded on tables with
   two leaves; yet they commonly contained, besides the names of the
   martyrs, the names also of the earlier bishops and still living
   benefactors or persons, of whom the priests were to make mention by
   name in the prayer before the consecration of the elements in the
   eucharist. The spread of the worship of a martyr, which usually started
   from the place of his martyrdom, promoted the interchange of names. The
   great influence of Rome gave to the Roman festival-list and calendar
   the chief currency in the West.

   Gradually the whole calendar was filled up with the names of saints. As
   the number of the martyrs exceeded the number of days in the year, the
   commemoration of several must fall upon the same day, or the canonical
   hours of cloister devotion must be given up. The oriental calendar is
   richer in saints from the Old Testament than the occidental. [862]

   With the calendars are connected the Martyrologia, or Acta Martyrum,
   Acta Sanctorum, called by the Greeks Menologia and Menaea. [863] There
   were at first only "Diptycha" and "Calendaria martyrum," i.e., lists of
   the names of the martyrs commemorated by the particular church in the
   order of the days of their death on the successive days of the year,
   with or without statements of the place and manner of their passion.
   This simple skeleton became gradually animated with biographical
   sketches, coming down from different times and various authors,
   containing a confused mixture of history and fable, truth and fiction,
   piety and superstition, and needing to be used with great critical
   caution. As these biographies of the saints were read on their annual
   days in the church and in the cloisters for the edification of the
   people, they were called Legenda.

   The first Acts of the Martyrs come down from the second and third
   centuries, in part from eye-witnesses, as, for example, the martyrdom
   of Polycarp (a.d. 167), and of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne in South
   Gaul; but most of them originated, at least in their present form, in
   the post-Constantinian age. Eusebius wrote a general martyrology, which
   is lost. The earliest Latin martyrology is ascribed to Jerome, but at
   all events contains many later additions; this father, however,
   furnished valuable contributions to such works in his "Lives of eminent
   Monks" and his "Catalogue of celebrated Church Teachers." Pope Gelasius
   thought good to prohibit or to restrict the church reading of the Acts
   of the Saints, because the names of the authors were unknown, and
   superfluous and incongruous additions by heretics or uneducated persons
   (idiotis) might be introduced. Gregory the Great speaks of a
   martyrology in use in Rome and elsewhere, which is perhaps the same
   afterward ascribed to Jerome and widely spread. The
   presentMartyrologium Romanum, which embraces the saints of all
   countries, is an expansion of this, and was edited by Baronius with a
   learned commentary at the command of Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. in
   1586, and afterward enlarged by the Jesuit Heribert Rosweyd.

   Rosweyd ( 1629) also sketched, toward the close of the sixteenth
   century, the plan for the celebrated "Acta Sanctorum, quotquot toto
   orbe coluntur," which Dr. John van Bolland ( 1665) and his companions
   and continuators, called Bollandists (Henschen, 1681; Papenbroek, 1714;
   Sollier, 1740; Stiltinck, 1762, and others of inferior merit),
   published at Antwerp in fifty-three folio volumes, between the years
   1643 and 1794 (including the two volumes of the second series), under
   the direction of the Jesuits, and with the richest and rarest literary
   aids. [864] This work contains, in the order of the days of the year,
   the biography of every saint in the Catholic calendar, as composed by
   the Bollandists, down to the fifteenth of October, together with all
   the acts of canonization, papal bulls, and other ancient documents
   belonging thereto, with learned treatises and notes; and that not in
   the style of popular legends, but in the tone of thorough historical
   investigation and free criticism, so far as a general accordance with
   the Roman Catholic system of faith would allow. [865] It was
   interrupted in 1773 by the abolition of the order of the Jesuits, then
   again in 1794, after a brief resumption of labor and the publication of
   two more volumes (the fifty-second and fifty-third), by the French
   Revolution and invasion of the Netherlands and the partial destruction
   of the literary, material; but since 1845 (or properly since 1837) it
   has been resumed at Brussels under the auspices of the same order,
   though not with the same historical learning and critical acumen, and
   proceeds tediously toward completion. [866] This colossal and amazing
   work of more than two centuries of pious industry and monkish learning
   will always remain a rich mine for the system of martyr and
   saint-worship and the history of Christian life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [859] The latter is found in the Acta Sanct. Jun. tom. vii. p. 176 sqq.

   [860] Printed in Angelo Mai, Script. vet. nova collect. tom. v. P. 1,
   pp. 66-68. Comp. Krafft, Kirchengeschichte der germanischen Völker.
   Vol. i. Div. 1, pp. 385-387.

   [861] From diptuchos, folded double.

   [862] The Roman Catholic saint-calendars have passed, without material
   change, to the Protestant church in Germany and other countries.
   Recently Prof. Piper in Berlin has attempted a thorough evangelical
   reform of the calendar by rejecting the doubtful or specifically Roman
   saints, and adding the names of the forerunners of the Reformation and
   the Reformers and distinguished men of the Protestant churches to the
   list under their birthdays. To this reform also his Evangelischer
   Kalender is devoted, which has appeared annually since 1850, and
   contains brief, popular sketches of the Catholic and Protestant saints
   received into the improved calendar. Most English and American
   calendars entirely omit this list of saints.

   [863] From menmonth; hence, month-register. The Greek Menologies,
   menologiaare simply the lists of the martyrs in monthly order, with
   short biographical notices. The Menaea, menaia, are intended for the
   public worship and comprise twelve folio volumes, corresponding to the
   twelve months, with the officia of the saints for every day, and the
   proper legends and hymns.

   [864] When Rosweyd's prospectus, which contemplated only 17 volumes,
   was shown to Cardinal Bellarmine, he asked: "What is the man's age?"
   "Perhaps forty." "Does he expect to live two hundred years?" More than
   250 years have passed since, and still the work is unfinished. The
   relation of the principal authors is indicated in the following verse:
   "Quod Rosweydus praepararat,
   Quod Bollandus inchoarat,
   Quod Henschenius formarat,
   Perfecit (?) Papenbroekius."

   [865] The work was even violently persecuted at times in the Romish
   Church. Papenbroek, for proving that the prophet Elijah was not the
   founder of the Carmelite order, was stigmatized as a heretic, and the
   Acta condemned by the Spanish Inquisition, but the condemnation was
   removed by papal interference in 1715. The Bollandists took holy
   revenge of the Carmelites by a most elaborate biography and vindication
   of St. Theresa, the glory of that order, in the fifty-fourth volume
   (the first of the new series), 1845, sub Oct. 15th, pp. 109-776.

   [866] The names connected with the new (third) series are Joseph van
   der Moere, Joseph van Hecke, Bossue, Buch, Tinnebroek, etc. By 1858
   five new folio volumes had appeared at Brussels (to the twenty-second
   of October), so that the whole work now embraces fifty-eight volumes,
   which cost from two thousand four hundred to three thousand francs. The
   present Bollandist library is in the convent of St. Michael in Brussels
   and embraces in three rooms every known biography of a saint, hundreds
   of the rarest missals and breviaries, hymnals and martyrologies,
   sacramentaries and rituals. A not very correct reprint of the Antwerp
   original has appeared at Venice since 1734. A new edition by Jo.
   Carnandet is now coming out at Paris and Rome, 1863 sqq. Complete
   copies have become very rare. I have seen and used at different times
   three copies, one in the Theol. Seminary Library at Andover, and two at
   New York (in the Astor Library, and in the Union Theol. Sem. Library).
   Comp. the Prooemium de ratione universa operis, in the Acta Sanctorum,
   vol. vi. for Oct. (published 1845). R. P. Dom Pitra: Etudes sur la
   Collection des Actes des Saintes, par les RR. PP. Jusuites
   Bollandistes. Par. 1850. Also an article on the Bollandists by J. M.
   Neale in his Essays on Liturgiology and Church History, Lond. 1863, p.
   89 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 87. Worship of Relics. Dogma of the Resurrection. Miracles of Relics.

   Comp. the Literature at § 84. Also J. Mabillon (R.C.): Observationes de
   sanctorum reliquiis (Praef. ad Acta s. Bened. Ordinis). Par. 1669.
   Barrington and Kirk (R.C.): The Faith of Catholics, &c. Lond. 1846.
   Vol. iii. pp. 250-307. On the Protestant side, J. H. Jung: Disquisitio
   antiquaria de reliqu. et profanis et sacris earumque cultu, ed. 4.
   Hannov. 1783.

   The veneration of martyrs and saints had respect, in the first
   instance, to their immortal spirits in heaven, but came to be extended,
   also, in a lower degree, to their earthly remains or relics. [867] By
   these are to be understood, first, their bodies, or rather parts of
   them, bones, blood, ashes; then all which was in any way closely
   connected with their persons, clothes, staff, furniture, and especially
   the instruments of their martyrdom. After the time of Ambrose the cross
   of Christ also, which, with the superscription and the nails, are said
   to have been miraculously discovered by the empress Helena in 326,
   [868] was included, and subsequently His crown of thorns and His coat,
   which are preserved, the former, according to the legend, in Paris, and
   the latter in Treves. [869] Relics of the body of Christ cannot be
   thought of, since He arose without seeing corruption, and ascended to
   heaven, where, above the reach of idolatry and superstition, He is
   enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His true relics are the Holy
   Supper and His living presence in the church to the end of the world.

   The worship of relics, like the worship of Mary and the saints, began
   in a sound religious feeling of reverence, of love, and of gratitude,
   but has swollen to an avalanche, and rushed into all kinds of
   superstitious and idolatrous excess. "The most glorious thing that the
   mind conceives," says Goethe, "is always set upon by a throng of more
   and more foreign matter."

   As Israel could not sustain the pure elevation of its divinely revealed
   religion, but lusted after the flesh pots of Egypt and coquetted with
   sensuous heathenism so it fared also with the ancient church.

   The worship of relics cannot be derived from Judaism; for the Levitical
   law strictly prohibited the contact of bodies and bones of the dead as
   defiling. [870] Yet the isolated instance of the bones of the prophet
   Elisha quickening by their contact a dead man who was cast into his
   tomb, [871] was quoted in behalf of the miraculous power of relics;
   though it should be observed that even this miracle did not lead the
   Israelites to do homage to the bones of the prophet nor abolish the law
   of the uncleanness of a corpse.

   The heathen abhorred corpses, and burnt them to ashes, except in Egypt,
   where embalming was the custom and was imitated by the Christians on
   the death of martyrs, though St. Anthony protested against it. There
   are examples, however, of the preservation of the bones of
   distinguished heroes like Theseus, and of the erection of temples over
   their graves. [872]

   The Christian relic worship was primarily a natural consequence of the
   worship of the saints, and was closely connected with the Christian
   doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which was an essential
   article of the apostolic tradition, and is incorporated in almost all
   the ancient creeds. For according to the gospel the body is not an evil
   substance, as the Platonists, Gnostics, Manichaeans held, but a
   creature of God; it is redeemed by Christ; it becomes by the
   regeneration an organ and temple of the Holy Ghost; and it rests as a
   living seed in the grave, to be raised again at the last day, and
   changed into the likeness of the glorious body of Christ. The bodies of
   the righteous "grow green" in their graves, to burst forth in glorious
   bloom on the morning of the resurrection. The first Christians from the
   beginning set great store by this comforting doctrine, at which the
   heathen, like Celsus and Julian, scoffed. Hence they abhorred also the
   heathen custom of burning, and adopted the Jewish custom of burial with
   solemn religious ceremonies, which, however, varied in different times
   and countries.

   But in the closer definition of the dogma of the resurrection two
   different tendencies appeared: a spiritualistic, represented by the
   Alexandrians, particularly by Origen and still later by the two
   Gregories; the other more realistic, favored by the Apostles' Creed,
   [873] advocated by Tertullian, but pressed by some church teachers,
   like Epiphanius and Jerome, in a grossly materialistic manner, without
   regard to the soma p'eumatikon of Paul and the declaration that "flesh
   and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." [874] The latter theory
   was far the more consonant with the prevailing spirit of our period,
   entirely supplanted the other, and gave the mortal remains of the
   saints a higher value, and the worship of them a firmer foundation.

   Roman Catholic historians and apologists find a justification of the
   worship and the healing virtue of relics in three facts of the New
   Testament: the healing of the woman with the issue of blood by the
   touch of Jesus' garment; [875] the healing of the sick by the shadow of
   Peter; [876] and the same by handkerchiefs from Paul. [877]

   These examples, as well as the miracle wrought by the bones of Elisha,
   were cited by Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and
   other fathers, to vindicate similar and greater miracles in their time.
   They certainly mark the extreme limit of the miraculous, beyond which
   it passes into the magical. But in all these cases the living and
   present person was the vehicle of the healing power; in the second case
   Luke records merely the popular belief, not the actual healing; and
   finally neither Christ nor the apostles themselves chose that method,
   nor in any way sanctioned the superstitions on which it was based.
   [878] At all events, the New Testament and the literature of the
   apostolic fathers know nothing of an idolatrous veneration of the cross
   of Christ or the bones and chattels of the apostles. The living words
   and acts of Christ and the apostles so completely absorbed attention
   that we have no authentic accounts of the bodily appearance, the
   incidental externals, and transient possessions of the founders of the
   church. Paul would know Christ after the spirit, not after the flesh.
   Even the burial places of most of the apostles and evangelists are
   unknown. The traditions of their martyrdom and their remains date from
   a much later time, and can claim no historical credibility.

   The first clear traces of the worship of relics appear in the second
   century in the church of Antioch, where the bones of the bishop and
   martyr Ignatius ( 107) were preserved as a priceless treasure; [879]
   and in Smyrna, where the half-burnt bones of Polycarp ( 167) were
   considered "more precious than the richest jewels and more tried than
   gold." [880] We read similar things in the Acts of the martyrs Perpetua
   and Cyprian. The author of the Apostolic Constitutions [881] exhorts
   that the relics of the saints, who are with the God of the living and
   not of the dead, be held in honor, and appeals to the miracle of the
   bones of Elisha, to the veneration which Joseph showed for the remains
   of Jacob, and to the bringing of the bones of Joseph by Moses and
   Joshua into the promised land. [882] Eusebius states that the episcopal
   throne of James of Jerusalem was preserved to his time, and was held in
   great honor. [883]

   Such pious fondness for relics, however, if it is confined within
   proper limits, is very natural and innocent, and appears even in the
   Puritans of New England, where the rock in Plymouth, the landing place
   of the Pilgrim Fathers in 1620, has the attraction of a place of
   pilgrimage, and the chair of the first governor of Massachusetts is
   scrupulously preserved, and is used at the inauguration of every new
   president of Harvard University.

   But toward the middle of the fourth century the veneration of relics
   simultaneously with the worship of the saints, assumed a decidedly
   superstitious and idolatrous character. The earthly remains of the
   martyrs were discovered commonly by visions and revelations, often not
   till centuries after their death, then borne in solemn processions to
   the churches and chapels erected to their memory, and deposited under
   the altar; [884] and this event was annually celebrated by a festival.
   [885] The legend of the discovery of the holy cross gave rise to two
   church festivals: The Feast of the Invention of the Cross [886] on the
   third of May, which has been observed in the Latin church since the
   fifth or sixth century; and The Feast of the Elevation of the Cross,
   [887] on the fourteenth of September, which has been observed in the
   East and the West, according to some since the consecration of the
   church of the Holy Sepulchre in 335, according to others only since the
   reconquest of the holy cross by the emperor Heraclius in 628. The
   relics were from time to time displayed to the veneration of the
   believing multitude, carried about in processions, preserved in golden
   and silver boxes, worn on the neck as amulets against disease and
   danger of every kind, and considered as possessing miraculous virtue,
   or more strictly, as instruments through which the saints in heaven, in
   virtue of their connection with Christ, wrought miracles of healing and
   even of raising the dead. Their number soon reached the incredible,
   even from one and the same original; there were, for example, countless
   splinters of the pretended cross of Christ from Jerusalem, while the
   cross itself is said to have remained, by a continued miracle, whole
   and undiminished! Veneration of the cross and crucifix knew no bounds,
   but can, by no means, be taken as a true measure of the worship of the
   Crucified; on the contrary, with the great mass the outward form came
   into the place of the spiritual intent, and the wooden and silver
   Christ was very often a poor substitute for the living Christ in the
   heart. [888]

   Relics became a regular article of trade, but gave occasion, also, for
   very many frauds, which even such credulous and superstitious
   relic-worshippers as St. Martin of Tours [889] and Gregory the Great
   [890] lamented. Theodosius I., as early as 386, prohibited this trade;
   and so did many councils; but without success. On this account the
   bishops found themselves compelled to prove the genuineness of the
   relics by historical tradition, or visions, or miracles.

   At first, an opposition arose to this worship of dead men's bones. St.
   Anthony, the father of monasticism ( 356), put in his dying protest
   against it, directing that his body should be buried in an unknown
   place. Athanasius relates this with approbation, [891] and he caused
   several relics which had been given to him to be fastened up, that they
   might be out of the reach of idolatry. [892] But the opposition soon
   ceased, or became confined to inferior or heretical authors, like
   Vigilantius and Eunomius, or to heathen opponents like Porphyry and
   Julian. Julian charges the Christians, on this point, with apostasy
   from their own Master, and sarcastically reminds them of His
   denunciation of the Pharisees, who were like whited sepulchres,
   beautiful without, but within full of dead men's bones and all
   uncleanness. [893] This opposition, of course, made no impression, and
   was attributed to sheer impiety. Even heretics and schismatics, with
   few exceptions, embraced this form of superstition, though the Catholic
   church denied the genuineness of their relics and the miraculous virtue
   of them

   The most and the best of the church teachers of our period, Hilary, the
   two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret,
   Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Leo, even those who combated the
   worship of images on this point, were carried along by the spirit of
   the time, and gave the weight of their countenance to the worship of
   relics, which thus became an essential constituent of the Greek and
   Roman Catholic religion. They went quite as far as the council of
   Trent, [894] which expresses itself more cautiously, on the worship of
   relics as well as of saints, than the church fathers of the Nicene age.
   With the good intent to promote popular piety by sensible stimulants
   and tangible supports, they became promoters of dangerous errors and
   gross superstition.

   To cite some of the most important testimonies:

   Gregory Nazianzen thinks the bodies of the saints can as well perform
   miracles, as their spirits, and that the smallest parts of the body or
   of the symbols of their passion are as efficacious as the whole body.
   [895]

   Chrysostom values the dust and ashes of the martyrs more highly than
   gold or jewels, and ascribes to them the power of healing diseases and
   putting death to flight. [896] In his festal discourse on the
   translation of the relics of the Egyptian martyrs from Alexandria to
   Constantinople, he extols the bodies of the saints in eloquent strains
   as the best ramparts of the city against all visible enemies and
   invisible demons, mightier than walls, moats, weapons, and armies.
   [897]

   "Let others," says Ambrose, "heap up silver and gold; we gather the
   nails wherewith the martyrs were pierced, and their victorious blood,
   and the wood of their cross." [898] He himself relates at large, in a
   letter to his sister, the miraculous discovery of the bones of the twin
   brothers Gervasius and Protasius, two otherwise wholly unknown and
   long-forgotten martyrs of the persecution under Nero or Domitian. [899]
   This is one of the most notorious relic miracles of the early church.
   It is attested by the most weighty authorities, by Ambrose and his
   younger contemporaries, his secretary and biographer Paulinus, the
   bishop Paulinus of Nola, and Augustine, who was then in Milan; it
   decided the victory of the Nicene orthodoxy over the Arian opposition
   of the empress Justina; yet is it very difficult to be believed, and
   seems at least in part to rest on pious frauds. [900]

   The story is, that when Ambrose, in 386, wished to consecrate the
   basilica at Milan, he was led by a higher intimation in a vision to
   cause the ground before the doors of Sts. Felix and Nahor to be dug up,
   and there he found two corpses of uncommon size, the heads severed from
   the bodies (for they died by the sword), the bones perfectly preserved,
   together with a great quantity of fresh blood. [901] These were the
   saints in question. They were exposed for two days to the wondering
   multitude, then borne in solemn procession to the basilica of Ambrose,
   performing on the way the healing of a blind man, Severus by name, a
   butcher by trade, and afterward sexton of this church. This, however,
   was not the only miracle which the bones performed. "The age of
   miracles returned," says Ambrose. "How many pieces of linen, how many
   portions of dress, were cast upon the holy relics and were recovered
   with the power of healing from that touch. [902] It is a source of joy
   to all to touch but the extremest portion of the linen that covers
   them; and whoso touches is healed. We give thee thanks, O Lord Jesus,
   that thou hast stirred up the energies of the holy martyrs at this
   time, wherein thy church has need of stronger defence. Let all learn
   what combatants I seek, who are able to contend for us, but who do not
   assail us, who minister good to all, harm to none." In his homily De
   inventione SS. Gervasii et Protasii, he vindicates the miracle of the
   healing of the blind man against the doubts of the Arians, and speaks
   of it as a universally acknowledged and undeniable fact: The healed
   man, Severus, is well known, and publicly testifies that he received
   his sight by the contact of the covering of the holy relics.

   Jerome calls Vigilantius, for his opposition to the idolatrous
   veneration of ashes and bones, a wretched man, whose condition cannot
   be sufficiently pitied, a Samaritan and Jew, who considered the dead
   unclean; but he protects himself against the charge of superstition. We
   honor the relics of the martyrs, says he, that we may adore the God of
   the martyrs; we honor the servants, in order thereby to honor the
   Master, who has said: "He that receiveth you, receiveth me." [903] The
   saints are not dead; for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not a
   God of the dead, but of the living. Neither are they enclosed in
   Abraham's bosom as in a prison till the day of Judgment, but they
   follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. [904]

   Augustine believed in the above-mentioned miraculous discovery of the
   bodies of Gervasius and Protasius, and the healing of the blind man by
   contact with them, because he himself was then in Milan, in 386, at the
   time of his conversion, [905] and was an eye-witness, not indeed of the
   discovery of the bones--for this he nowhere says--but of the miracles,
   and of the great stir among the people. [906]

   He gave credit likewise to the many miraculous cures which the bones of
   the first martyr Stephen are said to have performed in various parts of
   Africa in his time. [907] These relics were discovered in 415, nearly
   four centuries after the stoning of Stephen, in an obscure hamlet near
   Jerusalem, through a vision of Gamaliel, by a priest of Lucian; and
   some years afterward portions of them were transported to Uzali, not
   far from Utica, in North Africa, and to Spain and Gaul, and everywhere
   caused the greatest ado in the superstitious populace.

   But Augustine laments, on the other hand, the trade in real and
   fictitious relics, which was driven in his day, [908] and holds the
   miracles to be really superfluous, now that the world is converted to
   Christianity, so that he who still demands miracles, is himself a
   miracle. [909] Though he adds, that to that day miracles were performed
   in the name of Jesus by the sacraments or by the saints, but not with
   the same lustre, nor with the same significance and authority for the
   whole Christian world. [910] Thus he himself furnishes a warrant and an
   entering wedge for critical doubt in our estimate of those phenomena.
   [911]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [867] Reliquiae, and reliqua, leipsana.

   [868] The legend of the "invention of the cross" (inventio s. crucis),
   which is celebrated in the Greek and Latin churches by a special
   festival, is at best faintly implied in Eusebius in a letter of
   Constantineto the bishop Macarius of Jerusalem (Vita Const. iii. 30--a
   passage which Gieseler overlooked--though in iii. 25, where it should
   be expected, it is entirely unnoticed, as Gieseler correctly observes),
   and does not appear till several decennia later, first in Cyril of
   Jerusalem (whose Epist. ad Constantium of 351, however, is considered
   by Gieseler and others, on critical and theological grounds, a much
   later production), then, with good agreement as to the main fact, in
   Ambrose, Chrysostom, Paulinus of Nola, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret,
   and other fathers. With all these witnesses the fact is still hardly
   credible, and has against it particularly the following considerations:
   (1) The place of the crucifixion was desecrated under the emperor
   Hadrian by heathen temples and statues, besides being filled up and
   defaced beyond recognition. (2) There is no clear testimony of a
   contemporary. (3) The pilgrim from Bordeaux, who visited Jerusalem in
   333, and in a still extant itinerarium (Vetera Rom. itineraria, ed. P.
   Wesseling, p. 593) enumerates all the sacred things of the holy city,
   knows nothing of the holy cross or its Invention (comp. Gieseler, i. 2,
   p. 279, note 37; Edinb. ed. vol. ii. p. 36). This miracle contributed
   very much to the increase of the superstitious use of crosses and
   crucifixes. Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that about 380 the splinters of
   the holy cross filled the whole world, and yet, according to the
   account of the devout but credulous Paulinus of Nola (Epist. 31, al.
   11), the original remained in Jerusalem undiminished,--a continual
   miracle! Besides Gieseler, comp. particularly the minute investigation
   of this legend by Isaac Taylor, The Invention of the Cross and the
   Miracles therewith connected, in "Ancient Christianity," vol. ii. pp.
   277-315.

   [869] Comp. Gildemeister: Der heil. Rock von Trier, 2d ed. 1845--a
   controversial work called forth by the Ronge excitement in German
   Catholicism in 1844.

   [870] Num. xix. 11 ff.; xxxi. 19. The touching of a corpse or a dead
   bone, or a grave, made one unclean seven days, and was to be expiated
   by washing, upon pain of death. The tent, also, in which a person had
   died, and all open vessels in it, were unclean. Comp. Josephus, c.
   Apion. ii. 26; Antiqu. iii. 11, 3. The Talmudists made the laws still
   more stringent on this point.

   [871] 2 Kings xiii. 21 (Sept.): hepsato ton oston Helisaie, kai ezese
   kai este epi tous podasComp. the apocryphal book Jesus Sirach
   (Ecclesiasticus) xlviii. 13, 14; xlix. 12.

   [872]  Plutarch, in his Life of Theseus, c. 86.

   [873] In the phrase anastasis tes sarkos, instead of tou somatos,
   resurrectio carnis, instead of corporis. The Nicene creed uses the
   expression anastasis nekron, resurrectio mortuorum. In the German
   version of the Apostles' Creed the easily mistaken term Fleisch, flesh,
   is retained; but the English churches say more correctly: resurrection
   of the body.

   [874] Jerome, on the ground of his false translation of Job xix. 26,
   teaches even the restoration of all bones, veins, nerves, teeth, and
   hair (because the Bible speaks of gnashing of teeth among the damned,
   and of the hairs our heads being all numbered!). "Habent dentes," says
   he of the resurrection bodies, "ventrem, genitalia, et tamen nec cibis
   nec uxoribus indigent." Augustineis more cautious, and endeavors to
   avoid gross, carnal conceptions. Comp. the passages in Hagenbach's
   Dogmengeschichte, i. § 140 (Engl. ed., New York, i. p. 370 ff.).

   [875] Matt. ix. 20.

   [876] Acts v. 14, 15.

   [877] Acts xix. 11, 12.

   [878] On the contrary, the account of the healing of sick by the
   handkerchiefs of Paul is immediately followed by an account of the
   magical abuse of the name of Jesus, as a warning, Acts xix. 13 ff.

   [879] thesauros atimetos. Martyr. S. Ignat. cap. vii. (Patrum
   Apostolic. Opera, ed. Dressel, p. 214). The genuineness of the
   Martyr-Acts of Ignatius, however, is disputed by many.

   [880] Ta timiotera lithon polutelon kai dokimotera huper chrusion osta
   autou, Epist. Eccl. Smyrn. de Martyr. S. Polyc. c. 18 (ed. Dressel, p.
   404), and in Euseb. H. E. iv. 15.

   [881] Const. Apost. lib. vi. c. 30. The sixth book dates from the end
   of the third century.

   [882] Comp. Gen. l. 1, 2, 25, 26; Ex. xiii. 19; Jos. xxiv. 32; Acts
   vii. 16.

   [883] Hist. Ecel. vii. 19 and 32.

   [884] With reference to Rev. vi. 9: "I saw under the altar (hupokato
   tou thusiasteriou) the souls of them that were slain for the word of
   God," &c.

   [885] Festum translationis.

   [886] Festum inventionis s. crucis.

   [887] Festum exaltationis s. crucis, staurophaneia.

   [888] What Luther says of the "juggleries and idolatries" of the cross
   under the later papacy, which "would rather bear the cross of Christ in
   silver, than in heart and life," applies, though, of course, with many
   noble exceptions, even to the period before us. Dr. Herzog, in his
   Theol. Encyclopaedia, vol. viii. p. 60 f., makes the not unjust remark:
   "The more the cross came into use in manifold forms and signs, the more
   the truly evangelical faith in Christ, the Crucified, disappeared. The
   more the cross of Christ was outwardly exhibited, the more it became
   inwardly an offence and folly to men. The Roman Catholic church in this
   respect resembles those Christians, who talk so much of their spiritual
   experiences, make so much ado about them that they at last talk
   themselves out, and produce glittering nonsense."

   [889] Sulpit. Severus, Vita beati Mart. c. 11.

   [890] Epist. lib. iv. Ep. 30. Gregory here relates that some Greek
   monks came to Rome to dig up bones near St. Paul's church to sell, as
   they themselves confessed, for holy relics in the East (confessi sunt,
   quod illa ossa ad Graeciam essent tamquam Sanctorum reliquias
   portaturi).

   [891] In his Vita Antoini, Opera Athan. ii. 502.

   [892] Rufinus, Hist. Ecel. ii. 28.

   [893] Cyrillus Alex. Adv. Jul. l. x. tom. vi. p. 356.

   [894] Sessio xxv. De Invocat. Sanct., etc.

   [895] Adv. Julian. t. i. Orat. iii. p. 76 sq.

   [896] Opera, tom. ii. p. 828.

   [897] Hom. in MM. Aegypt. tom. ii. p. 834 sq.

   [898] Exhort. virgin. 1.

   [899] Epist. xxii. Sorori suae, Op. ii. pp. 874-878. Comp. Paulinus,
   Vit. Ambros. p. iv.; Paulinus Nol. Ep. xii. ad Severum; and Augustinein
   sundry places (see below).

   [900] Clericus, Mosheim, and Isaac Taylor (vol. ii. p. 242 ff.) do not
   hesitate to charge St. Ambrose, the author of the Te Deum, with fraud
   in this story. The latter, however, endeavors to save the character of
   Ambroseby distinguishing between himself and the spirit of his age.
   "Ambrose," says he (ii. 270), "occupies a high position among the
   Fathers; and there was a vigor and dignity in his character, as well as
   a vivid intelligence, which must command respect; but in proportion as
   we assign praise to the man, individually, we condemn the system which
   could so far vitiate a noble mind, and impel one so lofty in temper to
   act a part which heathen philosophers would utterly have abhorred."

   [901] "Invenimus mirae magnitudinis viros duos, ut prisca aetas
   ferebat, ossa omnia integra, sanguinis plurimum! " Did Ambrosereally
   believe that men in the first century (prisca aetas) were of greater
   bodily stature than his contemporaries in the fourth? But especially
   absurd is the mass of fresh blood, which then was exported throughout
   Christendom as a panacea. According to Romish tradition, the blood of
   many saints, as of Januarius in Naples, becomes liquid every year.
   Taylor the miraculously healed Severus, by trade a butcher, had
   something to do with this blood.

   [902] "Et tactu ipso medicabilia reposcuntur."

   [903] Ep. cix. ad Riparium.

   [904] Adv. Vigil.c. 6.

   [905] Cum illic--Mediolani--essemus.

   [906] He speaks of this four times clearly and plainly, Confess. ix. 7;
   De Civit Dei, xxii. 8; Serm. 286 in Natali MM. Protasii et Gervasii;
   Retract. i. 13, § 7.

   [907] Serm. 317 and 318 de Martyr. Steph. Is. Taylor (l.c. ii. pp.
   316-350) has thoroughly investigated the legend of the relics of the
   proto-martyr, and comes to the conclusion that it likewise rests on
   pious frauds which Augustinehonestly believed.

   [908] De opere Monachorum, c. 28: "Tam multos hypocrites sub habitu
   monachomm [hostis] usquequoque dispersit, circumeuntes provincias,
   nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes. Alii
   membra martyrum, el tamen martyrum, venditant." Augustinerejects the
   pretended miracles of the Donatists, and calls them wonderlings
   (mirabiliarii), who are either deceivers or deceived (In Joann. evang.
   Tract. xiii. § 17).

   [909] De Civit. Dei, xxii. c. 8: "Cur, inquiunt, nunc illa miracula,
   quae praedicatis facta esse, non fiunt? Possem quidem dicere,
   necessaria fuisse priusquam crederet mundus, ad hoc ut crederet mundus.
   Quisvis adhuc prodigia ut credat inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium,
   qui mundo credente non credit." Comp. De util. cred. c. 25, § 47; c.
   50, § 98; De vera relig. c. 25, § 47.

   [910] Ibid.: "Nam etiam nunc fiunt miracula in ejus nomine, Sive per
   sacramenta ejus, Sive per orationes vel memorias sanctorum ejus; sed
   non eadem claritate illustrantur, ut tanta quanta illa gloria
   diffamentur .... Nam plerumque etiam ibi [in the place where these
   miracles were wrought] paucissimi sciunt, ignorantibus caeteris, maxime
   si magna sit civitas; et quando alibi aliisque narrantur, non tanta ea
   commendat auctoritas, ut sine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur,
   quamvis Christianis fidelibus a fidelibus indicentur." Then follows the
   account of the famous miraculum Protasii et Gervasii, and of several
   cures in Carthage and Hippo. Those in Hippo were wrought by the relics
   of St. Stephen, and formally confirmed.

   [911] Comp. Fr. Nitzsch(jun.): Augustinus' Lehre vom Wunder, Berlin,
   1865, especially pp. 82-45. (A very full and satisfactory treatise.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 88. Observations on the Miracles of the Nicene Age.

   Comp. on the affirmative side especially John H. Newman (now R.C., then
   Romanizing Anglican): Essay on Miracles, in the 1st vol. of the English
   translation of Fleury's Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, 1842; on the
   negative, Isaac Taylor (Independent): Ancient Christianity, Lond. 4th
   ed. 1844. Vol. ii. pp. 233-365. Dr. Newman previously took the negative
   side on the question of the genuineness of the church miracles in a
   contribution to the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, 1830.

   In the face of such witnesses as Ambrose and Augustine, who must be
   accounted in any event the noblest and most honorable men of the early
   church, it is venturesome absolutely to deny all the relic-miracles,
   and to ascribe them to illusion and pious fraud. But, on the other
   hand, we should not be bribed or blinded by the character and authority
   of such witnesses, since experience sufficiently proves that even the
   best and most enlightened men cannot wholly divest themselves of
   superstition and of the prejudices of their age [912] Hence, too, we
   should not ascribe to this whole question of the credibility of the
   Nicene miracles an undue dogmatic weight, nor make the much wider issue
   between Catholicism and Protestantism dependent on it. [913] In every
   age, as in every man, light and shade in fact are mingled, that no
   flesh should exalt itself above measure. Even the most important
   periods of church history, among which the Nicene age, with all its
   faults, must be numbered, have the heavenly treasure in earthen
   vessels, and reflect the spotless glory of the Redeemer in broken
   colors.

   The most notorious and the most striking of the miracles of the fourth
   century are Constantine's vision of the cross (a.d. 312), the finding
   of the holy cross (a.d. 326), the frustration of Julian's building of
   the temple (a.d. 363) the discovery of the relics of Protasius and
   Gervasius (a.d. 386), and subsequently (a.d. 415) of the bones of St.
   Stephen, with a countless multitude of miraculous cures in its train.
   Respecting the most important we have already spoken at large in the
   proper places.

   We here offer some general remarks on this difficult subject.

   The possibility of miracles in general he only can deny who does not
   believe in a living God and Almighty Maker of heaven and earth. The
   laws of nature are organs of the free will of God; not chains by which
   He has bound Himself forever, but elastic threads which He can extend
   and contract at His pleasure. The actual occurrence of miracles is
   certain to every believer from Holy Scripture, and there is no passage
   in the New Testament to limit it to the apostolic age. The reasons
   which made miracles necessary as outward proofs of the divine mission
   of Christ and the apostles for the unbelieving Jews of their time, may
   reappear from time to time in the unbelieving heathen and the skeptical
   Christian world; while spiritual miracles are continually taking place
   in regeneration and conversion. In itself, it is by no means unworthy
   and incredible that God should sometimes condescend to the weakness of
   the uneducated mass, and should actually vouchsafe that which was
   implored through the mediation of saints and their relics.

   But the following weighty considerations rise against the miracles of
   the Nicene and post-Nicene age; not warranting, indeed, the rejection
   of all, yet making us at least very cautious and doubtful of receiving
   them in particular:

   1. These miracles have a much lower moral tone than those of the Bible,
   while in some cases they far exceed them in outward pomp, and make a
   stronger appeal to our faculty of belief. Many of the monkish miracles
   are not so much supernatural and above reason, as they are unnatural
   and against reason, attributing even to wild beasts of the desert,
   panthers and hyenas, with which the misanthropic hermits lived on
   confidential terms, moral feelings and states, repentance and
   conversion [914] of which no trace appears in the New Testament. [915]

   2. They serve not to confirm the Christian faith in general, but for
   the most part to support the ascetic life, the magical virtue of the
   sacrament, the veneration of saints and relics, and other superstitious
   practices, which are evidently of later origin, and are more or less
   offensive to the healthy evangelical mind. [916]

   3. The further they are removed from the apostolic age, the more
   numerous they are, and in the fourth century alone there are more
   miracles than in all the three preceding centuries together, while the
   reason for them, as against the power of the heathen world, was less.

   4. The church fathers, with all the worthiness of their character in
   other respects, confessedly lacked a highly cultivated sense of truth,
   and allowed a certain justification of falsehood ad majorem Dei
   gloriam, or fraus pia, under the misnomer of policy or accommodation;
   [917] with the solitary exception of Augustine, who, in advance of his
   age, rightly condemned falsehood in every form.

   5. Several church fathers like Augustine, Martin of Tours, and Gregory
   I., themselves concede that in their time extensive frauds with the
   relics of saints were already practised; and this is confirmed by the
   fact that there were not rarely numerous copies of the same relics, all
   of which claimed to be genuine.

   6. The Nicene miracles met with doubt and contradiction even among
   contemporaries, and Sulpitius Severus makes the important admission
   that the miracles of St. Martin were better known and more firmly
   believed in foreign countries than in his own. [918]

   7. Church fathers, like Chrysostom and Augustine, contradict themselves
   in a measure, in sometimes paying homage to the prevailing faith in
   miracles, especially in their discourses on the festivals of the
   martyrs, and in soberer moments, and in the calm exposition of the
   Scriptures, maintaining that miracles, at least in the Biblical sense,
   had long since ceased. [919]

   We must moreover remember that the rejection of the Nicene miracles by
   no means justifies the inference of intentional deception in every
   case, nor destroys the claim of the great church teachers to our
   respect. On the contrary, between the proper miracle and fraud there
   lie many intermediate steps of self-deception, clairvoyance, magnetic
   phenomena and cures, and unusual states of the human soul, which is
   full of deep mysteries, and stands nearer the invisible spirit-world
   than the everyday mind of the multitude suspects. Constantine's vision
   of the cross, for example, may be traced to a prophetic dream; [920]
   and the frustration of the building of the Jewish temple under Julian,
   to a special providence, or a historical judgment of God. [921] The
   mytho-poetic faculty, too, which freely and unconsciously produces
   miracles among children, may have been at work among credulous monks in
   the dreary deserts and magnified an ordinary event into a miracle. In
   judging of this obscure portion of the history of the church we must,
   in general, guard ourselves as well against shallow naturalism and
   skepticism, as against superstitious mysticism, remembering that


   "There are more things in heaven and on earth,

   Than are dreamed of in our philosophy."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [912] Recall, e.g., Luther and the apparitions of the devil, the
   Magnalia of Cotton Mather, the old Puritans and their trials for
   witchcraft, as well as the modem superstitions of spiritual rappings
   and table-turnings by which many eminent and intelligent persons have
   been carried along.

   [913] As is done by many Roman Catholic historians and apologists in
   the cause of Catholicism, and by Isaac Taylor in the interest of
   Protestantism. The latter says in his oft-quoted work, vol. ii. p. 239:
   "The question before us [on the genuineness of the Nicene miracles] is
   therefore in the strictest sense conclusive as to the modem controversy
   concerning church principles and the authority of tradition. If the
   miracles of the fourth century, and those which follow in the same
   track, were real, then Protestantism is altogether indefensible, and
   ought to be denounced as an impiety of the most flagrant kind. But if
   these miracles were wicked frauds; and if they were the first series of
   a system of impious delusion--then, not only is the modern Papacy to be
   condemned, but the church of the fourth century must be condemned with
   it; and for the same reasons; and the Reformation is to be adhered to
   as the emancipation of Christendom from the thraldom of him who is the
   'father of lies.' " Taylor accordingly sees in the old Catholic
   miracles sheer lying wonders of Satan, and signs of the apostasy of the
   church predicted in the Epistles of St. Paul. From the same point of
   view he treats also the phenomena of asceticism and monasticism,
   putting them with the unchristian hatred of the creature and the
   ascription of nature to the devil, which characterized the Gnostics.
   But he thus involves not only the Nicene age, but the ante-Nicene also,
   up to Irenaeus and Ignatius, in this apostasy, and virtually gives up
   the unbroken continuity of true Christianity. He is, moreover, not
   consistent in making the church fathers, on the one hand, the chief
   originators of monkish asceticism and false miracles, while, on the
   other hand, he sincerely reveres them and eloquently lauds them for
   their Christian earnestness and their immortal services. Comp. his
   beautiful concession in vol. i. p. 37 (cited in the 1st vol. of this
   Hist § 46, note 2).

   [914] Comp. the examples quoted in § 34, p. 177 f.

   [915] The speaking serpent in Paradise (Gen. iii.), and the speaking
   ass of Balaam (Num. xxii. 22-33; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 16), can hardly be
   cited as analogies, since in those cases the irrational beast is merely
   the organ of a moral power foreign to him.

   [916] Is. Taylor, l.c. vol. ii. p. 235, says of the miracles of the
   Nicene age: "These alleged miracles were, almost in every instance,
   wrought expressly in support of those very practices and opinions which
   stand forward as the points of contrast, distinguishing Romanism from
   Protestantism ... the supernatural properties of the eucharistic
   elements, the invocation of saints, or direct praying to them, and the
   efficacy of their relics; and the reverence or worship due to certain
   visible and palpable religious symbols." Historical questions, however,
   should be investigated and decided with all possible freedom from
   confessional prejudices.

   [917] So especially Jerome, Epist ad Pammachium (Lib. apologeticus pro
   libris contra Jovinianum Ep. xlviii. c. 12, ed. Vallarsi tom i. 222, or
   Ep. xix. in the Benedictine ed.): "Plura esse genera dicendi: et inter
   caetera, aliud esse gumnastikosscribere, aliud dogmatikos. In priori
   vagam esse disputationem; et adversario respondentem, nunc haec nunc
   illa proponere, argumentari ut libet, aliud loqui, aliud agere, panem,
   ut dicitur, ostendere, lapidem tenere. In sequenti autem aparta frons
   et, ut ita dicam, ingenuitas necessaria est. Aliud est quaerere, aliud
   definire. In altero pugnandum, in altero docendum est." He then appeals
   to the Greek and Roman classics, the ancient fathers in their polemical
   writings, and even St. Paul in his arguments from the Old Testament. Of
   interest in this connection is his controversy with Augustineon the
   conduct of Paul toward Peter, Gal. ii. 11, which Jeromewould attribute
   to mere policy or accommodation. Even Chrysostomutters loose principles
   on the duty of veracity (De sacerdot. i. 5), and his pupil Cassian
   still more, appealing to the example of Rahab (Coll. xvii. 8, 17,
   etc.). Comp. Gieseler, i. ii. p. 307 (§ 102, note 17). The corrupt
   principle that "the end sanctifies the means," is much older than
   Jesuitism, which is commonly made responsible for it. Christianity had
   at that time not yet wholly overcome the spirit of falsehood in ancient
   heathenism.

   [918] Dialog. i. 18.

   [919] This argument is prominently employed by James Craigie Robertson
   (moderate Anglican): History of the Christian Church to Gregory the
   Great, Lond. 1854, p. 334. "On the subject of miracles," says he,
   "there is a remarkable inconsistency in the statements of writers
   belonging to the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth
   centuries. St. Chrysostomspeaks of it as a notorious and long-settled
   fact that miracles had ceased (v. Newman, in Fleury, vol. i. p. xxxix).
   Yet at that very time, St. Martin, St. Ambrose, and the monks of Egypt
   and the East are said to have been in full thaumaturgical activity; and
   Sozomen (viii. 5) tells a story of a change of the eucharistic bread
   into a stone as having happened at Constantinople, while
   Chrysostomhimself was bishop. So again, St. Augustinesays that miracles
   such as those of Scripture were no longer done, yet he immediately goes
   on to reckon up a number of miracles which had lately taken place,
   apparently without exciting much sensation, and among them seventy
   formally attested ones, wrought at Hippo alone, within two years, by
   the relics of St. Stephen (De Civit. Dei, xxii. 8. 1, 20). On the
   whole, while I would not deny that miracles may have been wrought after
   the times of the apostles and their associates, I can find very little
   satisfaction in the particular instances which are given." On
   Augustine's theory of miracles, comp. above, § 87 (p. 459 f.), and the
   treatise of Nitzsch jun. there quoted.

   [920] Comp. above, § 2 (p.25).

   [921] Comp. above, § 4 (p. 55).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 89. Processions and Pilgrimages.

   Early Latin dissertations on pilgrimages by J. Gretser, Mamachi,
   Lazari, J. H. Heidegger, etc. J. Marx (R.C.): Das Wallfahren in der
   katholischen Kirche, historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Trier, 1842.
   Comp. the relevant sections in the church archaeologies of Bingham,
   Augusti, Binterim, &c.

   Solemn religious processions on high festivals and special occasions
   had been already customary among the Jews, [922] and even among the
   heathen. They arise from the love of human nature for show and display,
   which manifests itself in all countries in military parades, large
   funerals, and national festivities.

   The oppressed condition of the church until the time of Constantine
   made such public demonstrations impossible or unadvisable.

   In the fourth century, however, we find them in the East and in the
   West, among orthodox and heretics, [923] on days of fasting and prayer,
   on festivals of thanksgiving, at the burial of the dead, the induction
   of bishops, the removal of relics, the consecration of churches, and
   especially in times of public calamity. The two chief classes are
   thanksgiving and penitential processions. The latter were also called
   cross-processions, litanies. [924]

   The processions moved from church to church, and consisted of the
   clergy, the monks, and the people, alternately saying or singing
   prayers, psalms, and litanies. In the middle of the line commonly
   walked the bishop as leader, in surplice, stole, and pluvial, with the
   mitre on his head, the crozier in his left hand, and with his right
   hand blessing the people. A copy of the Bible, crucifixes, banners,
   images and relics, burning tapers or torches, added solemn state to the
   procession. [925]

   Regular annual processions occurred on Candlemas, and on Palm Sunday.
   To these was added, after the thirteenth century, the procession on
   Corpus Christi, in which the sacrament of the altar is carried about
   and worshipped.

   Pilgrimages are founded in the natural desire to see with one's own
   eyes sacred or celebrated places, for the gratification of curiosity,
   the increase of devotion, and the proving of gratitude. [926] These
   also were in use before the Christian era. The Jews went up annually to
   Jerusalem at their high festivals as afterward the Mohammedans went to
   Mecca. The heathen also built altars over the graves of their heroes
   and made pilgrimages thither. [927] To the Christians those places were
   most interesting and holy of all, where the Redeemer was born,
   suffered, died, and rose again for the salvation of the world.

   Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land appear in isolated cases even in
   the second century, and received a mighty impulse from the example of
   the superstitiously pious empress Helena, the mother of Constantine the
   Great. In 326, at the age of seventy-nine, she made a pilgrimage to
   Jerusalem, was baptized in the Jordan, discovered the holy cross,
   removed the pagan abominations and built Christian churches on Calvary
   and Olivet, and at Bethany. [928] In this she was liberally supported
   by her son, in whose arms she died at Nicomedia in 327. The influence
   of these famous pilgrims' churches extended through the whole middle
   age, to the crusades, and reaches even to most recent times. [929]

   The example of Helena was followed by innumerable pilgrims who thought
   that by such journeys they made the salvation of their souls more sure.
   They brought back with them splinters from the pretended holy cross,
   waters from the Jordan, earth from Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and other
   genuine and spurious relics, to which miraculous virtue was ascribed.
   [930]

   Several of the most enlightened church fathers, who approved
   pilgrimages in themselves, felt it necessary to oppose a superstitious
   estimate of them, and to remind the people that religion might be
   practised in any place. Gregory of Nyssa shows that pilgrimages are
   nowhere enjoined in the Scriptures, and are especially unsuitable and
   dangerous for women, and draws a very unfavorable picture of the
   immorality prevailing at places of such resort. "Change of place," says
   he, "brings God no nearer. Where thou art, God will come to thee, if
   the dwelling of thy soul is prepared for him." [931] Jerome describes
   with great admiration the devout pilgrimage of his friend Paula to the
   East, and says that he himself, in his Bethlehem, had adored the manger
   and birthplace of the Redeemer; [932] but he also very justly declares
   that Britain is as near heaven as Jerusalem, and that not a journey to
   Jerusalem, but a holy living there, is the laudable thing. [933]

   Next to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and other localities of the Holy Land,
   Rome was a preëminent place of resort for pilgrims from the West and
   East, who longed to tread the threshold of the princes of the apostles
   (limina apostolorum). Chrysostom regretted that want of time and health
   prevented him from kissing the chains of Peter and Paul, which made
   devils tremble and angels rejoice.

   In Africa, Hippo became a place of pilgrimage on account of the bones
   of St. Stephen; in Campania, the grave of St. Felix, at Nola; in Gaul,
   the grave of St. Martin of Tours ( 397). The last was especially
   renowned, and was the scene of innumerable miracles. [934] Even the
   memory of Job drew many pilgrims to Arabia to see the ash heap, and to
   kiss the earth, where the man of God endured so much. [935]

   In the Roman and Greek churches the practice of pilgrimage to holy
   places has maintained itself to the present day. Protestantism has
   divested the visiting of remarkable places, consecrated by great men or
   great events, of all meritoriousness and superstitious accessories, and
   has reduced it to a matter of commendable gratitude and devout
   curiosity. Within these limits even the evangelical Christian cannot
   view without emotion and edification the sacred spots of Palestine, the
   catacombs of Rome, the simple slabs over Luther and Melanchthon in the
   castle-church of Wittenberg, the monuments of the English martyrs in
   Oxford, or the rocky landing-place of the Puritanic pilgrim fathers in
   Massachusetts. He feels himself nearer to the spirit of the great dead;
   but he knows that this spirit continues not in their dust, but lives
   immortally with God and the saints in heaven.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [922] As in the siege of Jericho, Jos. vi. 3 ff.; at the dedication of
   Solomon's temple, 1 Kings viii. 1ff; on the entrance of Jesus into
   Jerusalem, Matt. xxi. 8 ff.

   [923] The Arians, for example. Comp. Sozom., H. E. viii. 8, where
   weekly singing processions of the Arians are spoken of.

   [924] Litaniae (litaneiai), supplicationes, rogationes, exomologeseis,
   stations, collectae.

   [925] The antiquity of all these accessory ceremonies cannot be exactly
   fixed.

   [926] "Die Stätte, die ein guter Mensch betrat, Ist eingeweiht; nach
   hundert Jahren klingt Sein Wort und seine That dem Enkel wieder."

   [927] "Religiosa cupiditas est," says Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 3 6, "loca
   videre, in quibus Christus ingressus et passus est et resurrexit et
   unde ascendit."

   [928] Euseb., Vita Const iii. 41 sq., and De locis Ebr. a. v.
   Bethabara.

   [929] Recall the Crimean war of 1854-'56.

   [930] Thus Augustine, De Civit. Dei, xxii. 8, is already found citing
   examples of the supernatural virtue of the terra sancta of Jerusalem.

   [931] Epist. ad Ambrosium et Basilissam.

   [932] Adv. Ruffinum ultima Responsio, c. 22 (Opp. ed. Vall. tom. ii. p.
   551), where he boastfully recounts his literary journeys, and says:
   "Protinus concito gradu Bethlehem meam reversus sum, ubi adoravi
   praesepe et incunabula Salvatoris." Comp. his Vita Paulae, for her
   daughter Eustochium, where he describes the pilgrim-stations then in
   use.

   [933] Epist. lviii. ad Paulinum (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, tom. i. p. 318; in
   the Bened. ed. it is Ep. 49; in the older editions, Ep. 13): "Non
   Jerusolymis fuisse, sed Jerusolymis bene vixisse, laudandum est." In
   the same epistle, p. 319, he commends the blessed monk Hilarion, that,
   though a Palestinian, he had been only a day in Jerusalem, "ut nec
   contemnere loca sancta propter viciniam, nec rursus Dominum loco
   claudere videretur."

   [934] The Huguenots in the sixteenth century burnt the bones of St.
   Martin, as objects of idolatry, and scattered their ashes to the winds.

   [935] So Chrysostomrelates, Hom. v. de statuis, § 1, tom. ii. f 59;
   hina ten korpian ekeinen idosi kai theasamenoi kataphilesosi ten gen.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 90. Public Worship of the Lord's Day. Scripture-Reading and
   Preaching.

   J.A. Schmidt: De primitive ecclesiae lectionibus. Helmst. 1697. E.
   Ranke: Das kirchliche Perikopensystem aus den Ältesten Urkunden der
   röm. Liturgie. Berlin, 1847. H. T. Tzschirner: De claris Eccles. vet.
   oratoribus Comment. i.-ix. Lips. 1817 sqq. K. W. F. Paniel:
   Pragmatische Geschichte der christl. Beredtsamkeit. Leipz. 1839 ff.

   The order and particular parts of the ordinary public worship of God
   remain the same as they were in the previous period. But the strict
   separation of the service of the Catechumens, [936] consisting of
   prayer, scripture reading, and preaching, from the service of the
   faithful, [937] consisting of the communion, lost its significance upon
   the universal prevalence of Christianity and the union of church and
   state. Since the fifth century the inhabitants of the Roman empire were
   now considered as Christians at least in name and confession and could
   attend even those parts of the worship which were formerly guarded by
   secrecy against the profanation of pagans. The Greek term liturgy, and
   the Latin term mass, which is derived from the customary formula of
   dismission, [938] was applied, since the close of the fourth century
   (398), to the communion service or the celebration of the eucharistic
   sacrifice. This was the divine service in the proper sense of the term,
   to which all other parts were subordinate. We shall speak of it more
   fully hereafter. [939] We have to do at present with those parts which
   were introductory to the communion and belong to the service of the
   catechumens as well as to that of the communicants.

   The reading of a portion of the Holy Scriptures continued to be an
   essential constituent of divine service. Upon the close of the church
   canon, after the Council of Carthage in 397, and other synods, the
   reading of uncanonical books (such as writings of the apostolic
   fathers) was forbidden, with the exception of the legends of the
   martyrs on their memorial days.

   There was as yet no obligatory system of pericopes, like that of the
   later Greek and Roman churches. The lectio continua, or the reading and
   exposition of whole books of the Bible, remained in practice till the
   fifth century, and the selection of books for the different parts and
   services of the church year was left to the judgment of the bishop. At
   high festivals, however, such portions were read as bore special
   reference to the subject of the celebration. By degrees, after the
   example of the Jewish synagogue, [940] a more complete yearly course of
   selections from the New Testament for liturgical use was arranged, and
   the selections were called lessons or pericopes. [941] In the Latin
   church this was done in the fifth century; in the Greek, in the eighth.
   The lessons [942] were taken from the Gospels and from the Epistles, or
   the Apostle (in part also from the Prophets), and were therefore called
   the Gospel and the Epistle for the particular Sunday or festival. Some
   churches, however, had three, or even four lessons, a Gospel, an
   Epistle, and a section from the Old Testament and from the Acts. Many
   manuscripts of the New Testament contained only the pericopes or
   lessons for public worship, [943] and many of these again, only the
   Gospel pericopes. [944] The Alexandrian deacon Euthalius, about 460,
   divided the Gospel and the Apostle, excepting the Revelation, into
   fifty-seven portions each, for the Sundays and feast days of the year;
   but they were not generally received, and the Eastern church still
   adhered for a long time to the lectio continua. Among the Latin
   lectionaries still extant, the Lectionarium Gallicanum, dating from the
   sixth or seventh century, and edited by Mabillon, and the so-called
   Comes (i.e., Clergyman's Companion) or Liber Comitis, were in especial
   repute. The latter is traced by tradition to the learned Jerome, and
   forms the groundwork of the Roman lectionary and the entire Western
   System of pericopes, which has passed from the Latin church into the
   Anglican and the Lutheran, but has undergone many changes in the course
   of time. [945] This selection of Scripture portions was in general
   better fitted to the church year, but had the disadvantage of
   withholding large parts of the holy Scriptures from the people.

   The lessons were read from the ambo or reading desk by the lector, with
   suitable formulas of introduction; usually the Epistle first, and then
   the Gospel; closing with the doxology or the singing of a psalm.
   Sometimes the deacon read the Gospel from the altar, to give it special
   distinction as the word of the Lord Himself.

   The church fathers earnestly enjoined, besides this, diligent private
   reading of the Scriptures; especially Chrysostom, who attributed all
   corruption in the church to the want of knowledge of the Scriptures.
   Yet he already found himself compelled to combat the assumption that
   the Bible is a book only for clergy and monks, and not for the people;
   an assumption which led in the middle age to the notorious papal
   prohibitions of the Scriptures in the popular tongues. Strictly
   speaking, the Bible has been made what it was originally intended to
   be, really a universal book of the people, only by the invention of the
   art of printing, by the spirit of the Reformation, and by the Bible
   Societies of modern times. For in the ancient church, and in the middle
   age, the manuscripts of the Bible were so rare and so dear, and the art
   of reading was so limited, that the great mass were almost entirely
   dependent on the fragmentary reading of the Scriptures in public
   worship. This fact must be well considered, to forestall too
   unfavorable a judgment of that early age.

   The reading of the Scripture was followed by the sermon, based either
   on the pericope just read, or on a whole book, in consecutive portions.
   We have from the greatest pulpit orators of antiquity, from Athanasius,
   Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine,
   connected homilies on Genesis, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels,
   and the Epistles. But on high festivals a text was always selected
   suitable and usual for the occasion. [946] There was therefore in the
   ancient church no forced conformity to the pericopes; the advantages of
   a system of Scripture lessons and a consecutive exposition of entire
   books of Scripture were combined. The reading of the pericopes belongs
   properly to the altar-service, and must keep its connection with the
   church year; preaching belongs to the pulpit, and may extend to the
   whole compass of the divine word.

   Pulpit eloquence in the fourth and fifth centuries reached a high point
   in the Greek church, and is most worthily represented by Gregory
   Nazianzen and Chrysostom. But it also often degenerated there into
   artificial rhetoric, declamatory bombast, and theatrical acting. Hence
   the abuse of frequent clapping and acclamations of applause among the
   people. [947] As at this day, so in that, many went to church not to
   worship God, but to hear a celebrated speaker, and left as soon as the
   sermon was done. The sermon, they said, we can hear only in the church,
   but we can pray as well at home. Chrysostom often raised his voice
   against this in Antioch and in Constantinople. The discourses of the
   most favorite preachers were often written down by stenographers and
   multiplied by manuscripts, sometimes with their permission, sometimes
   without.

   In the Western church the sermon was much less developed, consisted in
   most cases of a simple practical exhortation, and took the background
   of the eucharistic sacrifice. Hence it was a frequent thing there for
   the people to leave the church at the beginning of the sermon; so that
   many bishops, who had no idea of the free nature of religion and of
   worship, compelled the people to hear by closing the doors.

   The sermon was in general freely delivered from the bishop's chair or
   from the railing of the choir (the cancelli), sometimes from the
   reading-desk. The duty of preaching devolved upon the bishops; and even
   popes, like Leo I. and Gregory I., frequently preached before the Roman
   congregation. Preaching was also performed by the presbyters and
   deacons. Leo I. restricts the right of preaching and teaching to the
   ordained clergy; [948] yet monks and hermits preached not rarely in the
   streets, from pillars (like St. Symeon), roofs, or trees; and even
   laymen, like the emperor Constantine and some of his successors, wrote
   and delivered (though not in church) religious discourses to the
   faithful people. [949]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [936] Missa catechumenorum, leitourgiatonkatechoumenon.

   [937] Missa fidelium, leitourgiatonpiston.

   [938] Missa is equivalent to missio, dismissio, and meant originally
   the dismission of the congregation after the service by the customary
   formula: Ite, missa est (ecclesia). After the first part of the service
   the catechumens were thus dismissed by the deacon, after the second
   part the faithful. But with the fusion of the two parts in one, the
   formula of dismission was used only at the close, and then it came to
   signify also the service itself, more especially the eucharistic
   sacrifice. In the Greek church the corresponding formula of dismission
   was: apoluesthe en eirene, i.e., ite in pace (Apost. Const. lib. viii.
   c. 15). Ambrosius is the first who uses missa, missam facere (Ep. 20),
   for the eucharistic sacrifice. Other derivations of the word, from the
   Greek muesisor the Hebrew verb hs?, to act, etc., are too far fetched,
   and cut off by the fact that the word is used only in the Latin church.
   Comp. vol. i. § 101, p. 383 ff.

   [939] Comp. below, §§ 96 and 97.

   [940] The Jews, perhaps from the time of Ezra, divided the Old
   Testament into sections, larger or smaller, called Parashioth
   (tvyshrp), to wit, the Pentateuch into54 Parashioth, and the Prophets
   (i.e., the later historical books and the prophets proper) into as many
   Haphtharoth; and these sections were read in course on the different
   Sabbaths. This division is much older than the division into verses.

   [941] Lectiones, anagnosmata, anagnoseis, perikopai.

   [942] Lectiones, anagnosmata, anagnoseis, perikopai.

   [943] Hence called Lectionaria, sc. volumina, or Lectionarii, sc.
   libri; also Evangelia cum Epistolis, Comes (manual of the clergy); in
   Greek, anagnostika, euangelistaria, eklogadia.

   [944] Hence Evangelistaria, or Evangelistarim, in distinction from the
   Epistolaria, Epistolare, or Apostolus.

   [945] The high antiquity of the Comes appears at any rate in its
   beginning with the Christmas Vigils instead of the Advent Sunday, and
   its lack of the festival of the Trinity and most of the saints' days.
   There are different recensions of it, the oldest edited by Pamelius,
   another by Baluze, a third (made by Alcuin at the command of
   Charlemagne) by Thomasi. E. Ranke, l.c., has made it out probable that
   Jeromecomposed the Comes under commission from Pope Damasus, and is
   consequently the original author of the Western pericope system.

   [946] Comp. Augustine's Expos. in Joh. in praef.: "Meminit sanctitas
   vestra, evangelium secundum Johannem ex ordine lectionum nos solere
   tractare. Sed quia nunc interposita est solemnitas sanctorum dierum,
   quibus certas ex evangelio lectiones oportet recitari, quae ita sunt
   annuae, ut aliae esse non possint, ordo ille quem susceperamus, ex
   necessitate paululum intermissus est, non omissus."

   [947] Krotos, acclamatio, applausus. Chrysostomand Augustineoften
   denounced this theatrical disorder, but in vain.

   [948] Ep. 62 ad Maxim.: "Praeter eos qui sunt Domini sacerdotes nullus
   sibi jus docendi et praedicandi audeat vindicare, sive sit ille
   monachus, sive sit laicus, qui alicujus scientiae nomine glorietur."

   [949] Euseb. Vita Const. iv. 29, 32, 55, and Constantine's Oratio ad
   Sanctos, in the appendix
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 91. The Sacraments in General.

   G. L. Hahn: Die Lehre von den Sacramenten in ihrer geschichtlichen
   Entwicklung innerhalb der abendländischen Kirche bis zum Concil von
   Trient. Breslau, 1864 (147 pp.). Comp. also the article Sacramente by
   G. E. Steitz in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, vol. xiii. pp. 226-286; and
   Const. von Schätzler: Die Lehre von der Wirksamkeit der Sacramente ex
   opere operato. Munich, 1860.

   The use of the word sacramentum in the church still continued for a
   long time very indefinite. It embraced every mystical and sacred thing
   (omne mysticum sacrumque signum). Tertullian, Ambrose, Hilary, Leo,
   Chrysostom, and other fathers, apply it even to mysterious doctrines
   and facts, like the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the incarnation,
   the crucifixion, and the resurrection. But after the fifth century it
   denotes chiefly sacred forms of worship, which were instituted by
   Christ and by which divine blessings are mystically represented,
   sealed, and applied to men. This catholic theological conception has
   substantially passed into the evangelical churches, though with
   important changes as to the number and operation of the sacraments.
   [950]

   Augustine was the first to substitute a clear doctrine of the nature of
   the sacraments for a vague notion and rhetorical exaggerations. He
   defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of an invisible grace or
   divine blessing. [951] Two constituents, therefore, belong to such a
   holy act: the outward symbol or sensible element (the signum, also
   sacramentum in the stricter sense), which is visible to the eye, and
   the inward grace or divine virtue (the res or virtus sacramenti), which
   is an object of faith. [952] The two, the sign and the thing signified,
   are united by the word of consecration. [953] From the general spirit
   of Augustine's doctrine, and several of his expressions, we must infer
   that he considered divine institution by Christ to be also a mark of
   such holy ordinance. [954] But subsequently this important point
   retired from the consciousness of the church, and admitted the widening
   of the idea, and the increase of the number, of the sacraments.

   Augustine was also the first to frame a distinct doctrine of the
   operation of the sacraments. In his view the sacraments work grace or
   condemnation, blessing or curse, according to the condition of the
   receiver. [955] They operate, therefore, not immediately and magically,
   but mediately and ethically, not ex opere operato, in the later
   scholastic language, but through the medium of the active faith of the
   receiver. They certainly have, as divine institutions, an objective
   meaning in themselves, like the life-principle of a seed, and do not
   depend on the subjective condition of the one who administers them (as
   the Donatists taught); but they reach with blessing only those who
   seize the blessing, or take it from the ordinance, in faith; they bring
   curse to those who unworthily administer or receive them. Faith is
   necessary not as the efficient cause, but as the subjective condition,
   of the saving operation of the offered grace. [956] Augustine also
   makes a distinction between a transient and a permanent effect of the
   sacrament, and thereby prepares the way for the later scholastic
   doctrine of the character indelebilis. Baptism and ordination impress
   an indelible character, and therefore cannot be repeated. He is fond of
   comparing baptism with the badge of the imperial service, [957] which
   the soldier always retains either to his honor or to his shame. Hence
   the Catholic doctrine is: Once baptized, always baptized; once a
   priest, always a priest. Nevertheless a baptized person, or an ordained
   person, can be excommunicated and eternally lost. The popular opinion
   in the church already inclined strongly toward the superstitious view
   of the magical operation of the sacrament, which has since found
   scholastic expression in the opus operatum theory.

   The church fathers with one accord assert a relative (not absolute)
   necessity of the sacraments to salvation. [958] They saw in them,
   especially in baptism and the eucharist, the divinely appointed means
   of appropriating the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God. Yet with
   this view they firmly held that not the want of the sacraments, but
   only the contempt of them, was damning. [959] In favor of this they
   appealed to Moses, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, the thief on the
   cross,--who all, however, belonged to the Old Testament economy--and to
   many Christian martyrs, who sealed their faith in Christ with their
   blood, before they had opportunity to be baptized and to commune. The
   Virgin Mary also, and the apostles, belong in some sense to this class,
   who, since Christ himself did not baptize, received not the Christian
   baptism of water, but instead were on the day of Pentecost baptized
   with Spirit and with fire. Thus Cornelius also received through Peter
   the gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism; but nevertheless submitted
   himself afterwards to the outward Sacrament. In agreement with this
   view, sincere repentance and true faith, and above all the
   blood-baptism of martyrdom, [960] were regarded as a kind of
   compensation for the sacraments.

   The number of the sacraments remained yet for a long time indefinite;
   though among the church fathers of our period baptism and the Lord's
   Supper were regarded either as the only Sacraments, or as the prominent
   ones.

   Augustine considered it in general an excellence of the New Testament
   over the Old, that the number of the sacraments was diminished, but
   their import enhanced, [961] and calls baptism and the Supper, with
   reference to the water and the blood which flowed from the side of the
   Lord, the genuine or chief sacraments, on which the church subsists.
   [962] But he includes under the wider conception of the sacrament other
   mysterious and holy usages, which were commended in the Scriptures,
   [963] naming expressly confirmation, [964] marriage, [965] and
   ordination. [966] Thus he already recognizes to some extent five
   Christian sacraments, to which the Roman church has since added penance
   and extreme unction.

   Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogic Catechism, and Ambrose of Milan,
   in the six books De Sacramentis ascribed to him, mention only three
   sacraments: baptism, confirmation, and the Lord's supper; and Gregory
   of Nyssa likewise mentions three, but puts ordination in the place of
   confirmation. For in the Eastern church confirmation, or the laying on
   of hands, was less prominent, and formed a part of the sacrament of
   baptism; while in the Western church it gradually established itself in
   the rank of an independent sacrament.

   The unknown Greek author of the pseudo-Dionysian writings of the sixth
   century enumerates six sacraments (musteria): [967] (1.) baptism, or
   illumination; (2.) the eucharist, or the consecration of consecrations;
   (3.) the consecration with anointing oil, or confirmation; (4.) the
   consecration of priests; (5.) the consecration of monks; (6.) the
   consecration of the dead, or extreme unction. Here marriage and penance
   are wanting; in place of them appears the consecration of monks, which
   however was afterwards excluded from the number of the sacraments.

   In the North African, the Milanese, and the Gallican churches the
   washing of feet also long maintained the place of a distinct sacrament.
   [968] Ambrose asserted its sacramental character against the church of
   Rome, and even declared it to be as necessary as baptism, because it
   was instituted by Christ, and delivered men from original sin, as
   baptism from the actual sin of transgression;--a view which rightly
   found but little acceptance.

   This uncertainty as to the number of the sacraments continued till the
   twelfth century. [969] Yet the usage of the church from the fifth
   century downward, in the East and in the West, appears to have inclined
   silently to the number seven, which was commended by its mystical
   sacredness. This is shown at least by the agreement of the Greek and
   Roman churches in this point, and even of the Nestorians and
   Monophysites, who split off in the fifth century from the orthodox
   Greek church. [970]

   In the West, the number seven was first introduced, as is usually
   supposed, by the bishop Otto of Bamberg (1124), more correctly by Peter
   Lombard (d. 1164), the "Master of Sentences;" rationally and
   rhetorically justified by Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics (as
   recently by Möhler) from the seven chief religious wants of human life
   and human society; [971] and finally publicly sanctioned by the council
   of Florence in 1439 with the concurrence of the Greek church, and
   established by the council of Trent with an anathema against all who
   think otherwise. [972] The Reformation returned, in this point as in
   others, to the New Testament; retained none but baptism and the Lord's
   Supper as proper sacraments, instituted and enjoined by Christ himself;
   entirely rejected extreme unction (and at first confirmation);
   consigned penance to the province of the inward life, and confirmation,
   marriage, and orders to the more general province of sacred acts and
   usages, to which a more or less sacramental character may be ascribed,
   but by no means an equality in other respects with baptism and the holy
   Supper. [973]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [950] . The word sacramentum bears among the fathers the following
   senses: (1) The oath in general, as in the Roman profane writers; and
   particularly the soldier's oath. (2) The baptismal vow, by which the
   candidate bound himself to the perpetual service of Christ, as miles
   Christi, against sin, the world, and the devil. (3) The baptismal
   confession, which was regarded as a spiritual oath. (4) Baptism itself,
   which, therefore, was often styledsacramentum fidei, s. salutis, also
   pignus salutis. (5) It became almost synonymous with mystery, by reason
   of an inaccurate translation of the Greek musterion, in the Vulgate
   (comp. Eph. v. 32), and was accordingly applied to facts, truths, and
   precepts of the gospel which were concealed from those not Christiana,
   and to the Christian revelation in general. (6) The eucharist, and
   other holy ordinances and usages of the church. (7) After the twelfth
   century the seven well-known sacraments of the Catholic church. Comp.
   the proofs in Hahn, l.c. pp. 5-10, where yet other less usual senses of
   the word are adduced.

   [951] Signum visibile, or forma visibilis gratiae invisibilis.
   Augustinecalls the sacraments also verba visibilia, signacula
   corporalia, signa rerum spiritualium, signacula rerum divinarum
   visibilia, etc. See Hahn, l.c. p. 11 ff. The definition is not
   adequate. At least a third mark must be added, not distinctly mentioned
   by Augustine, viz., the divina institutio, or, more precisely, a
   mandatum Christi. This is the point of difference between the Catholic
   and Protestant conceptions of the sacrament. The Roman and Greek
   churches take the divine institution in a much broader sense, while
   Protestantism understands by it an express command of Christ in the New
   Testament, and consequently limits the number of sacraments to baptism
   and the Lord's Supper, since for the other five sacraments the Catholic
   church can show no such command. Yet confirmation, ordination, and
   marriage have practically acquired a sacramental import in
   Protestantism, especially in the Lutheran and Anglican churches.

   [952] Augustine, De catechiz. rudibus, § 50: "Sacramenta signacula
   quidem rerum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisibiles in eis
   honoari." Serm. ad pop. 292 (tom. v. p. 770): "Dicuntur sacramenta,
   quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem
   habet corporalem; quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritalem."

   [953] Augustine, In Joann Evang. tract. 80: "Detrahe verbum, et quid
   est aqua [the baptismal water] nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum
   et fit sacramemtum, etiam ipsum tamquam visibile verbum."

   [954] Comp. Epist. 82, §§ 14 and 15; Ep. 138, § 7; De vera relig. c.
   16, § 33; and Hahn p. 154.

   [955] Comp. the proof passages in Hahn, p. 279 ff. Thus Augustinesays,
   e.g., De bapt. contra Donat. 1. iii. c. 10 (tom. ix. p. 76):
   "Sacramento suo divina virtus adsistit sive ad salutem bene utentium,
   sive ad perniciem male utentium." De unit. eccl.c.21 (tom. ix. p. 256):
   "Facile potestis intelligere et in bonis esse et in malis sacramenta
   divina, sed in illis ad salutem, in malis ad damnationem."

   [956] Hence the later formula: Fides non facit ut sit sacramentum, sed
   ut prosit. Faith does not produce the sacramental blessing, but
   subjectively receives and appropriates it.

   [957] Stigma militare, character militaris. To this the expression
   character indelebilis certainly attaches itself easily, though the
   doctrine concerning it cannot be traced with certainty back of the
   thirteenth century. Comp. Hahn, l.c. p. 298 ff., where it is referred
   to the time of Pope Innocent III.

   [958] Even Augustine, De peccat. merit. et remiss. lib. i. c. 24, § 34:
   "Praeter baptismum et participationem mensae dominicae non solum ad
   regnum Dei, sed nec ad salutem et vitam aeternam posse quemquam hominem
   pervenire." This would, strictly considered, exclude all Quakers and
   unbaptized infants from salvation; but Augustineadmits as an exception
   the possibility of a conversion of the heart without baptism. See
   below. The scholastics distinguished more accurately a threefold
   necessity: (1) absolute: simpliciter necessarium; (2) teleological: in
   ordine ad finem; (3) hypothetical or relative: necessarium ex
   suppositione, quae est necessitas consequentiae. To the sacraments
   belongs only the last sort of necessity, because now, under existing
   circumstances, God will not ordinarily save any one without these means
   which he has appointed. Comp. Hahn, 1. c. p. 26 ff. According to Thomas
   Aquinas only three sacraments are perfectly necessary, viz., baptism
   and penance for the individual, and ordination for the whole church.

   [959] "Non defectus, sed contemptus sacramenti damnat." Comp.
   Augustine, De bapt. contra Donat. 1. iv. c. 25, §32: "Conversio cordis
   potest quidem inesse non percepto baptismo, sed contemto non potest.
   Neque enim ullo modo dicenda est conversio cordis ad Deum, cum Dei
   sacramentum contemnitur."

   [960] Baptismus sanguinis.

   [961] Contra Faust. xix. 13: "Prima sacramenta praenunciativa erant
   Christi venturi; quae cum suo adventu Christus implevisset ablata sunt
   et alia sunt instituta, virtute majora, numero pauciora."

   [962] De symb. ad Catech. c. 6: "Quomodo Eva facts est ex latere Adam,
   ita ecclesia formatur ex latere Christi. Percussum est ejus latus et
   statim manavit sanguis et aqua, quae sunt ecclesiae genuina
   sacramenta." De ordine baptismi, c. 5 (Bibl. max. tom. xiv. p. 11):
   "Profluxerunt ex ejus latere sanguis etaqua, duo sanctae ecclesiae
   praecipua sacramenta." Serm. 218: "Sacraments, quibus formatur
   ecclesia." Comp. Chrysostom, Homil. 85 in Joh: ex amphoteron he
   ekklesia sunesteke. Tertulliancalled baptism and the eucharist
   "sacramenta propria," Adv. Marc. i. 14.

   [963] "Et si quid aliud in divinis literis commendatur," or: "omne
   mysticum sacrumque signum."

   [964] "Sacrimentum chrismatis, " Contr. Lit. Petiliani ii. 104. So even
   Cyprian, Ep. 72.

   [965] "Sacramentum nuptiarum," De nuptiis et concupisc. i. 2.

   [966] "Sacramentum dandi baptismum," De bapt ad Donat. i. 2; Epist.
   Parm ii. 13.

   [967] De hierarch. eccles. c. 2 sq.

   [968] According to the testimony of Ambrose, Augustine, and the Missale
   Gallicum vetus. Comp. Hahn, l.c. p. 84 f.

   [969] Beda Venerabilis ( 735), Ratramnus of Corbie ( 868), Ratherius of
   Verona ( 974), in enumerating the sacraments, name only baptism and the
   Lord's Supper; and even Alexander of Hales ( 1245) expressly says
   (Summa p. iv. Qu. 8, Membr. 2, art. 1): "Christus duo sacraments
   instituit per se ipsum, sacramentum baptismi et sacramentum
   eucharistiae." Damiani ( 1072), on the other hand, mentions twelve
   sacraments, viz., baptism, confirmation, anointing of the sick,
   consecration of bishops, consecration of kings, consecration of
   churches, penance, consecration of canons, monks, hermits, and nuns and
   marriage. Opp. tom. ii. 372 (ed. C. Cajet.). Bernard of Clairvaux (
   1151) names ten sacraments. Confirmation was usually reckoned among the
   sacraments. Comp. Hahn, l.c. 88 ff.

   [970] No plain trace, however, of such a definite number appears in the
   earliest monuments of the faith of these Oriental sects, or even in the
   orthodox theologian John Damascenus.

   [971] Usually: Birth = baptism; growth = confirmation; nourishment =
   the Supper; healing of Sickness = penance; perfect restoration =
   extreme unction; propagation of society = marriage; government of
   society = orders. Others compare the sacraments with the four cardinal
   natural virtues: prudence, courage, justice, and temperance, and the
   three theological virtues: faith, love, and hope; but vary in their
   assignments of the several sacraments to the several virtues
   respectively. All these comparisons are, of course, more or less
   arbitrary and fanciful.

   [972] The Council of Trent pronounces the anathema upon all who deny
   the number of seven sacraments and its institution by Christ, Sess.
   vii. de sacr. can. 1: "Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae legis non
   fuisse omnia a Christo instituta, aut esse plum vel pauciora quam
   septem, anathema sit." In default of a historical proof of the seven
   sacraments from the writings of the church fathers, Roman divines, like
   Brenner and Perrone, find themselves compelled to resort to the
   disciplina arcani; but this related only to the celebration of the
   sacraments, and disappeared in the fourth century upon the universal
   adoption of Christianity. Comp. also the treatise of G. L. Hahn:
   Doctrinae Romanae de numero sacramentario septenario rationes
   historicae. Vratisl. 1859.

   [973] A more particular discussion of the differences between the Roman
   and the Protestant doctrines of the sacraments belongs to symbolism and
   polemics.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 92. Baptism.

   For the Literature, see vol. i. § 37, p. 122; especially Höfling
   (Lutheran): Das Sacrament der Taufe. W. Wall (Anglican): The History of
   Infant Baptism (1705), new ed. Oxf. 1844, 4vols. C. A. G. v.
   Zezschwitz: System der christlich kirchlichen Katechetik. Vol. i.
   Leipz. 1863.

   On heretical baptism in particular, See Mattes (R.C.): Ueber die
   Ketzertaufe, in the Tübingen "Theol. Quartalschrift," for 1849, pp.
   571-637, and 1850, pp. 24-69; and G. E. Steitz, art. Ketzertaufe in
   Herzog's Theol. Encyclop. vol. vii. pp. 524-541 (partly in opposition
   to Mattes). Concerning the form of baptism, on the Baptist side, T. J.
   Conant: The Meaning and Use of Baptizein philologically and
   historically investigated. New York, 1861.

   The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal
   regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in
   rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote
   special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and
   logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view
   on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now
   prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the
   more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so much a subjective
   change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change
   in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his
   translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ. Some
   modern divines make a distinction between baptismal and moral
   regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with
   the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many
   who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the
   difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a
   historical statement.

   Gregory Nazianzen sees in baptism all blessings of Christianity
   combined, especially the forgiveness of sins, the new birth, and the
   restoration of the divine image. To children it is a seal (sphragis) of
   grace and a consecration to the service of God. According to Gregory of
   Nyssa, the child by baptism is instated in the paradise from which Adam
   was thrust out. The Greek fathers had no clear conception of original
   sin. According to the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum, Chrysostom taught: We
   baptize children, though they are not stained with sin, in order that
   holiness, righteousness, sonship, inheritance, and brotherhood may be
   imparted to them through Christ. [974]

   Augustine brought the operation of baptism into connection with his
   more complete doctrine of original sin. Baptism delivers from the guilt
   of original sin, and takes away the sinful character of the
   concupiscence of the flesh, [975] while for the adult it at the same
   time effects the forgiveness of all actual transgressions before
   baptism. Like Ambrose and other fathers, Augustine taught the necessity
   of baptism for entrance into the kingdom of heaven, on the ground of
   John iii. 5, and deduced therefrom, in logical consistency, the
   terrible doctrine of the damnation of all unbaptized children, though
   he assigned them the mildest grade of perdition. [976]

   The council of Carthage, in 318, did the same, and in its second canon
   rejected the notion of a happy middle state for unbaptized children. It
   is remarkable, however, that this addition to the second canon does not
   appear in all copies of the Acts of the council, and was perhaps out of
   some horror omitted. [977]

   In Augustine we already find all the germs of the scholastic and
   Catholic doctrine of baptism, though they hardly agree properly with
   his doctrine of predestination, the absolute sovereignty of divine
   grace and the perseverance of saints. According to this view, baptism
   is the sacrament of regeneration, which is, negatively, the means of
   the forgiveness of sin, that is, both of original sin and of actual
   sins committed before baptism (not after it), and positively, the
   foundation of the new spiritual life of faith through the impartation
   of the gratia operans and co-operans. The subjective condition of this
   effect is the worthy receiving, that is, penitent faith. Since in the
   child there is no actual sin, the effect of baptism in this case is
   limited to the remission of the guilt of original sin; and since the
   child cannot yet itself believe, the Christian church (represented by
   the parents and the sponsors) here appears in its behalf, as Augustine
   likewise supposed, and assumes the responsibility of the education of
   the baptized child to Christian majority. [978]

   As to infant baptism: there was in this period a general conviction of
   its propriety and of its apostolic origin. Even the Pelagians were no
   exception; though infant baptism does not properly fit into their
   system; for they denied original sin, and baptism, as a rite of
   purification, always has reference to the forgiveness of sins. They
   attributed to infant baptism an improving effect. Coelestius maintained
   that children by baptism gained entrance to the higher stage of
   salvation, the kingdom of God, to which, with merely natural powers,
   they could not attain. He therefore supposed a middle condition of
   lower salvation for unbaptized children, which in the above quoted
   second canon of the council of Carthage--if it be genuine--is
   condemned. Pelagius said more cautiously: Whither unbaptized children
   go, I know not; whither they do not go, I know.

   But, notwithstanding this general admission of infant baptism, the
   practice of it was by no means universal. Forced baptism, which is
   contrary to the nature of Christianity and the sacrament, was as yet
   unknown. Many Christian parents postponed the baptism of their
   children, sometimes from indifference, sometimes from fear that they
   might by their later life forfeit the grace of baptism, and thereby
   make their condition the worse. Thus Gregory Nazianzen and Augustine,
   though they had eminently pious mothers, were not baptized till their
   conversion in their manhood. But they afterward regretted this. Gregory
   admonishes a mother: "Let not sin gain the mastery in thy child; let
   him be consecrated even in swaddling bands. Thou art afraid of the
   divine seal on account of the weakness of nature. What weakness of
   faith! Hannah dedicated her Samuel to the Lord even before his birth;
   and immediately after his birth trained him for the priesthood. Instead
   of fearing human weakness, trust in God."

   Many adult catechumens and proselytes likewise, partly from
   light-mindedness and love of the world, partly from pious prudence and
   superstitious fear of impairing the magical virtue of baptism,
   postponed their baptism until some misfortune or severe sickness drove
   them to the ordinance. The most celebrated example of this is the
   emperor Constantine, who was not baptized till he was on his bed of
   death. The postponement of baptism in that day was equivalent to the
   postponement of repentance and conversion so frequent in ours. This
   custom was resisted by the most eminent church teachers, but did not
   give way till the fifth century, when it gradually disappeared before
   the universal introduction of infant baptism.

   Heretical baptism was now generally regarded as valid, if performed in
   the name of the triune God. The Roman view prevailed over the
   Cyprianic, at least in the Western church; except among the Donatists,
   who entirely rejected heretical baptism (as well as the catholic
   baptism), and made the efficacy of the sacrament depend not only on the
   ecclesiastical position, but also on the personal piety of the
   officiating priest.

   Augustine, in his anti-Donatistic writings, defends the validity of
   heretical baptism by the following course of argument: Baptism is an
   institution of Christ, in the administration of which the minister is
   only an agent; the grace or virtue of the sacrament is entirely
   dependent on Christ, and not on the moral character of the
   administering agent; the unbeliever receives not the power, but the
   form of the sacrament, which indeed is of no use to the baptized as
   long as he is outside of the saving catholic communion, but becomes
   available as soon as he enters it on profession of faith; baptism,
   wherever performed, imparts an indelible character, or, as he calls it,
   a "character dominicus," "regius." He compares it often to the "nota
   militaris," which marks the soldier once for all, whether it was
   branded on his body by the legitimate captain or by a rebel, and binds
   him to the service, and exposes him to punishment for disobedience.

   Proselyted heretics were, however, always confirmed by the laying on of
   hands, when received into the catholic church. They were treated like
   penitents. Leo the Great says of them, that they have received only the
   form of baptism without the power of sanctification. [979]

   The most eminent Greek fathers of the Nicene age, on the other hand,
   adhered to the position of Cyprian and Firmilian. Athanasius, Gregory
   Nazianzen, Basil, and Cyril of Jerusalem regarded, besides the proper
   form, the true trinitarian faith on the part of the baptizing
   community, as an essential condition of the validity of baptism. The
   45th of the so-called Apostolic Canons threatens those with
   excommunication who received converted heretics without rebaptism. But
   a milder view gradually obtained even in the East, which settled at
   last upon a compromise.

   The ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381, in its seventh canon
   (which, however, is wanting in the Latin versions, and is perhaps
   later), recognizes the baptism of the Arians, the Sabbatians (a sort of
   Novatians, so called from their leader Sabbatius), the
   Quartodecimanians, the Apollinarians, but rejected the baptism of the
   Eunomians, "who baptize with only one immersion," the Sabellians, "who
   teach the Son-Fatherhood (huiopatoria)," the Montanists (probably
   because they did not at that time use the orthodox baptismal formula),
   and all other heretics. These had first to be exercised, then
   instructed, and then baptized, being treated therefore as heathen
   proselytes. [980] The Trullan council of 692, in its 95th canon
   repeated this canon, and added the Nestorians, the Eutychians, and the
   followers of Dioscurus and Severus to the list of those heretics who
   may be received into the church on a mere recantation of their error.
   These decisions lack principle and consistency.

   The catechetical instruction which preceded the baptism of proselytes
   and adults, and followed the baptism of children, ended with a public
   examination (scrutinium) before the congregation. The Creed--in the
   East the Nicene, in the West the Apostles'--was committed to memory and
   professed by the candidates or the god-parents of the children.

   The favorite times for baptism for adults were Easter and Pentecost,
   and in the East also Epiphany. In the fourth century, when the mass of
   the population of the Roman empire went over from heathenism to
   Christianity, the baptisteries were thronged with proselytes on those
   high festivals, and the baptism of such masses had often a very
   imposing and solemn character. Children were usually incorporated into
   the church by baptism soon after their birth.

   Immersion continued to be the usual form of baptism, especially in the
   East; and the threefold immersion in the name of the Trinity. Yet
   Gregory the Great permitted also the single immersion, which was
   customary in Spain as a testimony against the Arian polytheism. [981]

   With baptism, several preparatory and accompanying ceremonies, some of
   them as early as the second and third centuries, were connected; which
   were significant, but overshadowed and obscured the original simplicity
   of the sacrament. These were exorcism, or the expulsion of the devil;
   [982] breathing upon the candidates, [983] as a sign of the
   communication of the Holy Ghost, according to John xx. 22; the touching
   of the ears, [984] with the exclamation: Ephphatha!--from Mark vii. 34,
   for the opening of the spiritual understanding; the sign of the cross
   made upon the forehead and breast, as the mark of the soldier of
   Christ; and, at least in Africa, the giving of salt, as the emblem of
   the divine word, according to Mark ix. 50; Matt. v. 13 Col. iv. 6.
   Proselytes generally took also a new name, according to Rev. ii. 17.

   In the act of baptism itself, the candidate first, with his face toward
   the west, renounced Satan and all his pomp and service, [985] then,
   facing the east, he vowed fidelity to Christ, [986] and confessed his
   faith in the triune God, either by rehearsing the Creed, or in answer
   to questions. [987] Thereupon followed the threefold or the single
   immersion in the name of the triune God, with the calling of the name
   of the candidate, the deacons and deaconesses assisting. After the
   second anointing with the consecrated oil (confirmation), the veil was
   removed, with which the heads of catechumens, in token of their
   spiritual minority, were covered during divine worship, and the
   baptized person was clothed in white garments, representing the state
   of regeneration, purity, and freedom. In the Western church the
   baptized person received at the same time a mixture of milk and honey,
   as a symbol of childlike innocence and as a fore-taste of the
   communion.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [974] The passage is not found in the writings of Chrysostom.
   Augustine, however, does not dispute the citation, but tries to explain
   it away (contra Julian. i. c. 6, § 21).

   [975] De nupt. et concup. i. 28: "Dimittitur concupiscentia carnis in
   baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur."

   [976] "Parvulos in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros." Comp. De
   peccat. mer. i. 20, 21, 28; Ep. 186, 27. To the heathen he also
   assigned a milder and more tolerable condemnation, Contr. Julian. iv.
   23.

   [977] Comp. Neander, l.c. i. p. 424, and especially Hefele,
   Conciliengeschichte, ii. p. 103. The passage in question, which is
   lacking both in Isidore and in Dionysius, runs thus: "Whoever says that
   there is, in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere, a certain middle
   place, where children who die without baptism live happy (beate
   vivant), while yet they cannot without baptism enter into the kingdom
   of heaven, i.e., into eternal life, let him be anathema."

   [978] The scholastics were not entirely agreed whether baptism imparts
   positive grace to all, or only to adults. Peter Lombard was of the
   latter opinion; but most divines extended the positive effect of
   baptism even to children, though under various modifications. Comp. the
   full exposition of the scholastic doctrine of baptism (which does not
   belong here) in Hahn, l.c. p. 333 ff.

   [979] Epist. 129 ad Nicet. c. 7: "Qui baptismum ab haereticis
   acceperunt ... sola invocatione Spiritus S. per impositionem manuum
   confirmandi sunt, quia formam tantum baptismi sine sanctificationis
   virtute sumpserunt."

   [980] Comp. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. 26; Mattes, Ueber die
   Ketzertaufe, in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1849, p. 580.

   [981] Greg. Ep. i. 43, to Bishop Leander of Seville: "Dum in tribus
   subsistentiis una substantia est, reprehensibile esse nullatenus potest
   infantem in baptismate vel ter vel semel mergere: quando et in tribus
   mersionibus personarum trinitas, et in una potest personarum
   singularitas designari. Sed quia nunc usque ab haereticis infans in
   baptismate tertio mergebatur, fiendum apud vos non esse censeo, ne dum
   mersiones numerant, divinitatem dividant." From this we see, at the
   same time, that even in infant baptism, and among heretics, immersion
   was the custom. Yet in the nature of the case, sprinkling, at least of
   weak or sick children, as in the baptismus clinicorum, especially in
   northern climates, came early into use.

   [982] Comp. vol. i. p. 399.

   [983] Insufflare, emphusan.

   [984] Sacramentum apertionis.

   [985] This was the apotage, or abrenunciatio diaboli, with the words:
   Apotassomai soi, Satana, kai pase te pompe sou kai pase te latreia sou.
   The Apostolic Constitutions add tois ergois. In Tertullian: "Renunciare
   diabolo et pompae et angelis ejus."

   [986] Suntassomai soi, Christe.

   [987] Homologesis, professio.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 93. Confirmation.

   Comp. the Literature of Baptism, especially Höfling, and Zezschwitz:
   Der Katechumenat (first vol. of his System der Katechetik). Leipzig,
   1863.

   Confirmation, in the first centuries, was closely connected with the
   act of baptism as the completion of that act, especially in adults.
   After the cessation of proselyte baptism and the increase of infant
   baptism, it gradually came to be regarded as an independent sacrament.
   Even by Augustine, Leo I., and others, it is expressly called
   sacramentum. [988] This independence was promoted by the hierarchical
   interest, especially in the Latin church, where the performance of this
   rite is an episcopal function.

   The catholic theory of confirmation is, that it seals and completes the
   grace of baptism, and at the same time forms in some sense a subjective
   complement to infant baptism, in which the baptized person, now grown
   to years of discretion, renews the vows made by his parents or sponsors
   in his name at his baptism, and makes himself personally responsible
   for them. The latter, however, is more properly a later Protestant
   (Lutheran and Anglican) view. Baptism, according to the doctrine of the
   ancient church, admits the man into the rank of the soldiers of Christ;
   confirmation endows him with strength and courage for the spiritual
   warfare.

   The outward form of confirmation consists in the anointing of the
   forehead, the nose, the ear, and the breast with the consecrated oil,
   or a mixture of balsam, [989] which symbolizes the consecration of the
   whole man to the spiritual priesthood; and in the laying on of the
   hands of the clergyman, [990] which signifies and effects the
   communication of the Holy Ghost for the general Christian calling.
   [991] The anointing takes precedence of the imposition of hands, in
   agreement with the Old Testament sacerdotal view; while in the
   Protestant church, wherever confirmation continues, it is entirely
   abandoned, and only the imposition of hands is retained.

   In other respects considerable diversity prevailed in the different
   parts of the ancient church in regard to the usage of confirmation and
   the time of performing it.

   In the Greek church every priest may administer confirmation or holy
   unction, and that immediately after baptism; but in the Latin church
   after the time of Jerome (as now in the Anglican) this function, like
   the power of ordination, was considered a prerogative of the bishops,
   who made periodical tours in their dioceses to confirm the baptized.
   Thus the two acts were often far apart in time.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [988] Aug. Contra liter. Petil. l. ii. c. 104 (tom. ix. p. 199); Leo,
   Epist. 156, c. 5. Confirmation is called confirmatio from its nature;
   sigillum or consignatio, from its design; chrisma orunctio, from its
   matter; and impositio manuum, from its form.

   [989] Chrisma. This was afterward, in the Latin church, the second
   anointing, in distinction from that which took place at baptism. The
   Greek church, however, which always conjoins confirmation with baptism,
   stopped with one anointing. Comp. Hahn, l.c. p. 91 f.

   [990] Impositio manuum. This, however, subsequently became less
   prominent than the anointing; hence confirmation is also called simply
   chrisma, or sacramentum chrismatis, unctionis.

   [991] The formula now used in the Roman church in the act of
   confirmation, which is not older, however, than the twelfth century,
   runs: "Signo te signo crucis et confirmo te chrismate salutis, in
   nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 94. Ordination.

   J. Morinus (R.C.): Comment. Hist. so dogm. de sacris Eccles.
   ordinationibus. Par. 1655, etc. Fr. Halierius (R.C.): De sacris
   electionibus et ordinationibus. Rom. 1749. 3 vols. fol. G. L. Hahn:
   l.c. p. 96 and p. 354 ff. Comp. the relevant sections in the
   archaeological works of Bingham, Augusti, Binterim, etc.

   The ordination of clergymen [992] was as early as the fourth or fifth
   century admitted into the number of sacraments. Augustine first calls
   it a sacrament, but with the remark that in his time the church
   unanimously acknowledged the sacramental character of this usage. [993]

   Ordination is the solemn consecration to the special priesthood, as
   baptism is the introduction to the universal priesthood; and it is the
   medium of communicating the gifts for the ministerial office. It
   confers the capacity and authority of administering the sacraments and
   governing the body of believers, and secures to the church order, care,
   and steady growth to the end of time. A ruling power is as necessary in
   the church as in the state. In the Jewish church there was a hereditary
   priestly caste; in the Christian this is exchanged for an unbroken
   succession of voluntary priests from all classes, but mostly from the
   middle and lower classes of the people.

   Like baptism and confirmation, ordination imparts, according to the
   later scholastic doctrine, a character indelebilis, and cannot
   therefore be repeated. [994] But this of course does not exclude the
   possibility of suspension and excommunication in case of gross
   immorality or gross error. The council of Nice, in 325, acknowledged
   even the validity of the ordination of the schismatic Novatians.

   Corresponding to the three ordines majores there were three
   ordinations: to the diaconate, to the presbyterate, and to the
   episcopate. [995] Many of the most eminent bishops, however, like
   Cyprian and Ambrose, received the three rites in quick succession, and
   officiated only as bishops.

   Different from ordination is installation, or induction into a
   particular congregation or diocese, which may be repeated as often as
   the minister is transferred.

   Ordination was performed by laying on of hands and prayer, closing with
   the communion. To these were gradually added other preparatory and
   attendant practices; such as the tonsure [996] the anointing with the
   chrism (only in the Latin church after Gregory the Great), investing
   with the insignia of the office (the holy books, and in the case of
   bishops the ring and staff), the kiss of brotherhood, etc. Only bishops
   can ordain, though presbyters assist. The ordination or consecraion of
   a bishop generally requires, for greater solemnity, the presence of
   three bishops.

   No one can receive priestly orders without a fixed field of labor which
   yields him support. [997] In the course of time further restrictions,
   derived in part from the Old Testament, in regard to age, education,
   physical and moral constitution, freedom from the bonds of marriage,
   etc., were established by ecclesiastical legislation.

   The favorite times for ordination were Pentecost and the quarterly
   Quatember terms [998] (i.e., the beginning of Quadragesima, the weeks
   after Pentecost, after the fourteenth of September, and after the
   thirteenth of December), which were observed, after Gelasius or Leo the
   Great, as ordinary penitential seasons of the church. The candidates
   were obliged to prepare themselves for consecration by prayer and
   fasting.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [992] Cheirotonia, kathiersis, ordinatioand in the case of bishops,
   consecratio.

   [993] De bono conjug. c. 18 (tom. vi. p. 242), c. 24 (p. 247); Contr.
   Epist. Parmen. l. ii. c. 12 (tom. ix. pp. 29, 30). Comp. Leo M. Epist.
   xii. c. 9; Gregor. M. Expos. in i. Regg. l. vi. c. 3. These and other
   passages in Hahn, p. 97.

   [994] Already intimated by Augustine, De bapt. c. Donat. ii. 2: "Sicut
   baptizatus, si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum dandi non amittit,
   sic etiam ordinatus, Si ab unitate recesserit, sacramentum dandi
   baptismum [i.e., ordination] non amittit."

   [995] On the character of the ordination of the sub-deacons, as well as
   of diaconissae and presbyters, there were afterward diverse views.
   Usually this was considered ordination only in an improper sense.

   [996]  After the fifth century, but under various forms, tonsura Petri,
   etc. It was first applied to penitents, then to monks, and finally to
   the clergy.

   [997] Hence the old rules: "Ne quis vage ordinetur," and, "Nemo
   ordinatur sine titulo." Comp. Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5; 1 Pet. v. 1.

   [998] Quatuor tempora. Comp. the old verse: "Post crux (Holyrood day,
   14th September), post cineres (Ash Wednesday), post spiritus
   (Pentecost) atque Luciae (13th December), Sit tibi in auguria quarta
   sequens feria."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 95. The Sacrament of the Eucharist.

   Comp. the Literature in vol. i. § 38 and § 102, the corresponding
   sections in the Doctrine Histories and Archaeologies, and the treatises
   of G. E. Steitz on the historical development of the doctrine of the
   Lord's Supper in the Greek church, in Dorner's "Jahrbücher für Deutsche
   Theologie," for 1864 and 1865. In part also the liturgical works of
   Neale, Daniel, etc., cited below (§ 98), and Philip Freeman: The
   Principles of Divine Service. Lond. Part i. 1855, Part ii. 1862. (The
   author, in the introduction to the second part, states as his object:
   "To unravel, by means of an historical survey of the ancient belief
   concerning the Holy Eucharist, viewed as a mystery, and of the later
   departures from it, the manifold confusions which have grown up around
   the subject, more especially since the fatal epoch of the eleventh
   century." But the book treats not so much of the doctrine of the
   Eucharist, as of the ceremony of it, and the eucharistic sacrifice,
   with special reference to the Anglican church.)

   The Eucharist is both a sacrament wherein God conveys to us a certain
   blessing, and a sacrifice which man offers to God. As a sacrament, or
   the communion, it stands at the head of all sacred rites; as a
   sacrifice it stands alone. The celebration of it under this twofold
   character forms the holy of holies of the Christian cultus in the
   ancient church, and in the greater part of Christendom at this day.
   [999]

   We consider first the doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrament, then
   the doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and finally the
   celebration of the eucharistic communion and eucharistic sacrifice.

   The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of
   theological controversy and ecclesiastical action till the time of
   Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century; whereas since then this feast
   of the Saviour's dying love has been the innocent cause of the most
   bitter disputes, especially in the age of the Reformation, between
   Papists and Protestants, and among Lutherans, Zwinglians, and
   Calvinists. Hence the doctrine of the ancient church on this point
   lacks the clearness and definiteness which the Nicene dogma of the
   Trinity, the Chalcedonian Christology, and the Augustinian anthropology
   and soteriology acquired from the controversies preceding them. In the
   doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a
   consensus patrum, than in the doctrine of the holy Supper.

   In general, this period, following the representatives of the mystic
   theory in the previous one, was already very strongly inclined toward
   the doctrine of transubstantiation and toward the Greek and Roman
   sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real
   sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim. But the kind and
   mode of this presence are not yet particularly defined, and admit very
   different views: Christ may be conceived as really present either in
   and with the elements (consubstantiation, impanation), or under the
   illusive appearance of the changed elements (transubstantiation), or
   only dynamically and spiritually.

   In the previous period we distinguish three views: the mystic view of
   Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of
   Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of
   Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In the present the first view, which
   best answered the mystic and superstitious tendency of the time,
   preponderated, but the second also was represented by considerable
   authorities. [1000]

   I. The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and
   the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They
   speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and
   sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and
   blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real
   sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible
   elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the
   act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements,
   whereby they become vehicles and organs of the life of Christ, although
   by no means necessarily changed into another substance. To denote this
   change very strong expressions are used, like metabole, metaballein,
   metaballesthai, metastoicheiousthai, metapoieisthai, mutatio,
   translatio, transfiguratio, transformatio; [1001] illustrated by the
   miraculous transformation of water into wine, the assimilation of food,
   and the pervasive power of leaven.

   Cyril of Jerusalem goes farther in this direction than any of the
   fathers. He plainly teaches some sort of supernatural connection
   between the body of Christ and the elements, though not necessarily a
   transubstantiation of the latter. Let us hear the principal passages.
   [1002] "Then follows," he says in describing the celebration of the
   Eucharist, "the invocation of God, for the sending of his Spirit to
   make the bread the body of Christ, the wine the blood of Christ. For
   what the Holy Ghost touches is sanctified and transformed." "Under the
   type of the bread [1003] is given to thee the body, under the type of
   the wine is given to thee the blood, that thou mayest be a partaker of
   the body and blood of Christ, and be of one body and blood with him."
   [1004] "After the invocation of the Holy Ghost the bread of the
   Eucharist is no longer bread, but the body of Christ." "Consider,
   therefore, the bread and the wine not as empty elements, for they are,
   according to the declaration of the Lord, the body and blood of
   Christ." In support of this change Cyril refers at one time to the
   wedding feast at Cana, which indicates, the Roman theory of change of
   substance; but at another to the consecration of the chrism, wherein
   the substance is unchanged. He was not clear and consistent with
   himself. His opinion probably was, that the eucharistic elements lost
   by consecration not so much their earthly substance, as their earthly
   purpose.

   Gregory of Nyssa, though in general a very faithful disciple of the
   spiritualistic Origen, is on this point entirely realistic. He calls
   the Eucharist a food of immortality, and speaks of a miraculous
   transformation of the nature of the elements into the glorified body of
   Christ by virtue of the priestly blessing. [1005]

   Chrysostom likewise, though only incidentally in his homilies, and not
   in the strain of sober logic and theology, but of glowing rhetoric,
   speaks several times of a union of our whole nature with the body of
   Christ in the Eucharist, and even of a manducatio oralis. [1006]

   Of the Latin fathers, Hilary, [1007] Ambrose, [1008] and Gaudentius (
   410) come nearest to the later dogma of transubstantiation. The latter
   says: "The Creator and Lord of nature, who produces bread from the
   earth, prepares out of bread his own body, makes of wine his own
   blood." [1009]

   But closely as these and similar expressions verge upon the Roman
   doctrine of transubstantiation, they seem to contain at most a dynamic,
   not a substantial, change of the elements into the body and the blood
   of Christ. For, in the first place, it must be remembered there is a
   great difference between the half-poetic, enthusiastic, glowing
   language of devotion, in which the fathers, and especially the
   liturgies, speak of the eucharistic sacrifice, and the clear, calm, and
   cool language of logic and doctrinal definition. In the second place,
   the same fathers apply the same or quite similar terms to the baptismal
   water and the chrism of confirmation, without intending to teach a
   proper change of the substance of these material elements into the Holy
   Ghost. On the other hand, they not rarely use, concerning the bread and
   wine, tupos, antitupa, figura, signum, and like expressions, which
   denote rather a symbolical than a metabolical relation of them to the
   body and blood of the Lord. Finally, the favorite comparison of the
   mysterious transformation with the incarnation of the Logos, which, in
   fact, was not an annihilation of the human nature, but an assumption of
   it into unity with the divine, is of itself in favor of the continuance
   of the substance of the elements; else it would abet the Eutychian
   heresy.

   II. The symbolical view, though on a realistic basis, is represented
   first by Eusebius, who calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by
   the symbols of his body and blood, and takes the flesh and blood of
   Christ in the sixth chapter of John to mean the words of Christ, which
   are spirit and life, the true food of the soul, to believers. [1010]
   Here appears the influence of his venerated Origen, whose views in
   regard to the sacramental aspect of the Eucharist he substantially
   repeats.

   But it is striking that even Athanasius, "the father of orthodoxy,"
   recognized only a spiritual participation, a self-communication of the
   nourishing divine virtue of the Logos, in the symbols of the bread and
   wine, and incidentally evinces a doctrine of the Eucharist wholly
   foreign to the Catholic, and very like the older Alexandrian or
   Origenistic, and the Calvinistic, though by no means identical with the
   latter. [1011] By the flesh and blood in the mysterious discourse of
   Jesus in the sixth chapter of John, which he refers to the Lord's
   Supper, he understands not the earthly, human, but the heavenly, divine
   manifestation of Jesus, a spiritual nutriment coming down from above,
   which the Logos through the Holy Ghost communicates to believers (but
   not to a Judas, nor to the unbelieving). [1012] With this view accords
   his extending of the participation of the eucharistic food to believers
   in heaven, and even to the angels, who, on account of their incorporeal
   nature, are incapable of a corporeal participation of Christ. [1013]

   Gregory Nazianzen sees in the Eucharist a type of the incarnation, and
   calls the consecrated elements symbols and antitypes of the great
   mysteries, but ascribes to them a saving virtue. [1014]

   St. Basil, likewise, in explaining the words of Christ, "I live by the
   Father" (John vi. 57), against, the Arians who inferred from it that
   Christ was a creature, incidentally gives a spiritual meaning to the
   fruition of the eucharistic elements. "We eat the flesh of Christ," he
   says, "and drink His blood, if we, through His incarnation and human
   life, become partakers of the Logos and of wisdom." [1015]

   Macarius the Elder, a gifted representative of the earlier Greek
   mysticism ( 390), belongs to the same Symbolical school; he calls bread
   and wine the antitype of the body and blood of Christ, and seems to
   know only a spiritual eating of the flesh of the Lord. [1016]

   Theodoret, who was acknowledged orthodox by the council of Chalcedon,
   teaches indeed a transformation (metaballein) of the eucharistic
   elements by virtue of the priestly consecration, and an adoration of
   them, which certainly sounds quite Romish, but in the same connection
   expressly rejects the idea of an absorption of the elements in the body
   of the Lord, as an error akin to the Monophysite. "The mystical emblems
   of the body and blood of Christ," says he, "continue in their original
   essence and form, they are visible and tangible as they were before
   [the consecration]; [1017] but the contemplation of the spirit and of
   faith sees in them that which they have become, and they are adored
   also as that which they are to believers." [1018]

   Similar language occurs in an epistle to the monk Caesarius ascribed to
   Chrysostom, but perhaps not genuine; [1019] in Ephraim of Antioch,
   cited by Photius; and even in the Roman bishop Gelasius at the end of
   the fifth century (492-496).

   The latter says expressly, in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:
   "The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a
   divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature.
   Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And
   assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ
   are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries." [1020]

   It is remarkable that Augustine, in other respects so decidedly
   catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the
   cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African
   theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the
   Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the
   Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or
   Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as
   much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation. [1021] He was
   the first to make a clear distinction between the outward sign and the
   inward grace, which are equally essential to the conception of the
   sacrament. He maintains the figurative character of the words of
   institution, and of the discourse of Jesus, on the eating and drinking
   of his flesh and blood in the sixth chapter of John; with Tertullian,
   he calls the bread and wine "figurae" "or "signa corporis et sanguinis
   Christi" (but certainly not mere figures), and insists on a distinction
   between "that which is visibly received in the sacrament, and that
   which is spiritually eaten and drunk," or between a carnal, visible
   manducation of the sacrament, and a spiritual eating of the flesh of
   Christ and drinking of his blood. [1022] The latter he limits to the
   elect and the believing, though, in opposition to the subjectivism of
   the Donatists, he asserts that the sacrament (in its objective import)
   is the body of Christ even for unworthy receivers. He says of Judas,
   that he only ate the bread of the Lord, while the other apostles "ate
   the Lord who was the bread." In another place: The sacramentum "is
   given to some unto life, to others unto destruction;" but the res
   sacramenti, i.e., "the thing itself of which it is the sacramentum, is
   given to every one who is partaker of it, unto life." "He who does not
   abide in Christ, undoubtedly neither eats His flesh nor drinks His
   blood, though he eats and drinks the sacramentum (i.e., the outward
   sign) of so great a thing to his condemnation." Augustine at all events
   lays chief stress on the spiritual participation. "Why preparest thou
   the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten." [1023] He
   claims for the sacrament religious reverence, but not a superstitious
   dread, as if it were a miracle of magical effect. [1024] He also
   expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ's body,
   which had already come into use in support of the materializing view,
   and has since been further developed by Lutheran divines in support of
   the theory of consubstantiation. "The body with which Christ rose,"
   says he, "He took to heaven, which must be in a place .... We must
   guard against such a conception of His divinity as destroys the reality
   of His flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was
   certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon
   earth." "I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven, as it was
   upon earth when he ascended to heaven." [1025] Yet this great church
   teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the
   Supper. He says of the martyrs: "They have drunk the blood of Christ,
   and have shed their own blood for Christ." He was also inclined, with
   the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated
   elements.

   Augustine's pupil, Facundus, taught that the sacramental bread "is not
   properly the body of Christ, but contains the mystery of the body."
   Fulgentius of Ruspe held the same symbolical view; and even at a much
   later period we can trace it through the mighty influence of
   Augustine's writings in Isidore of Sevilla, Beda Venerabilis, among the
   divines of the Carolingian age, in Ratramnus, and Berengar of Tours,
   until it broke forth in a modified form with greater force than ever in
   the sixteenth century, and took permanent foothold in the Reformed
   churches.

   Pope Leo I. is sometimes likewise numbered with the symbolists, but
   without good reason. He calls the communion a "spiritual food," [1026]
   as Athanasius had done before, but supposes a sort of assimilation of
   the flesh and blood of Christ by the believing participation. "What we
   believe, that we receive with the mouth .... The participation of the
   body and blood of Christ causes that we pass into that which we
   receive, and bear Christ in us in Spirit and body." Voluntary
   abstinence from the wine in the Supper was as yet considered by this
   pope a sin. [1027]

   III. The old liturgies, whose testimony on this point is as important
   as that of the church fathers, presuppose the actual presence of Christ
   in the Supper, but speak throughout in the stately language of
   sentiment, and nowhere attempt an explanation of the nature and mode of
   this presence, and of its relation to the still visible forms of bread
   and wine. They use concerning the consecrated elements such terms as:
   The holy body, The dear blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ, The sanctified
   oblation, The heavenly, spotless, glorious, awful, divine gifts, The
   awful, unbloody, holy sacrifice, &c. In the act of consecration the
   liturgies pray for the sending down of the Holy Ghost, that he may
   "sanctify and perfect" [1028] the bread and wine, or that he may
   sanctify and make "them the body and blood of Christ, [1029] or bless
   and make." [1030]

   IV. As to the adoration of the consecrated elements: This follows with
   logical necessity from the doctrine of transubstantiation, and is the
   sure touchstone of it. No trace of such adoration appears, however, in
   the ancient liturgies, and the whole patristic literature yields only
   four passages from which this practice can be inferred; plainly showing
   that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet fixed in the
   consciousness of the church.

   Chrysostom says: "The wise men adored Christ in the manger; we see him
   not in the manger, but on the altar, and should pay him still greater
   homage." [1031] Theodoret, in the passage already cited, likewise uses
   the term proskunein, but at the same time expressly asserts the
   continuance of the substance of the elements. Ambrose speaks once of
   the flesh of Christ "which we to-day adore in the mysteries," [1032]
   and Augustine, of an adoration preceding the participation of the flesh
   of Christ. [1033]

   In all these passages we must, no doubt, take the term proskunei'n and
   adorare in the wider sense, and distinguish the bowing of the knee,
   which was so frequent, especially in the East, as a mere mark of
   respect, from proper adoration. The old liturgies contain no direction
   for any such act of adoration as became prevalent in the Latin church,
   with the elevation of the host, after the triumph of the doctrine of
   transubstantiation in the twelfth century. [1034]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [999] Freeman, l.c. Introduction to Part ii. (1857), p. 2, says of the
   Eucharist, not without justice, from a historical and theological point
   of view: "It was confessedly through long ages of the church, and is by
   the vast majority of the Christian world at this hour, conceived to be
   ... no less than the highest line of contact and region of commingling
   between heaven and earth known to us, or provided for us;--a borderland
   of mystery, where, by gradations baffling sight and thought, the
   material truly blends with the spiritual, and the visible shades off
   into the unseen; a thing, therefore, which of all events or gifts in
   this world most nearly answers to the highest aspirations and deepest
   yearnings of our wonderfully compounded being; while in some ages and
   climes of the church it has been elevated into something yet more awful
   and mysterious."

   [1000] Rückert divides the fathers into 2 classes: the Metabolical, and
   the Symbolical. The symbolical view he assigns to Tertullian, Clement,
   Origen, Euseb., Athan., and Augustine. But to this designation there
   are many objections. Of the Synecdochian (Lutheran) interpretation of
   the words of institution the ancient church knew nothing." So says
   Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, ii. p. 221.

   [1001] But not yet the technical term transubstantiatio, which was
   introduced by Paschasius Radbertus toward the middle of the ninth
   century, and the corresponding Greek term metousiosis, which is still
   later.

   [1002] Comp. especially his five mystagogical discourses, addresses to
   the newly baptized. Cyril's doctrine is discussed at large in Rückert,
   Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen u. seine Geschichte, p. 415 ff. Comp. also
   Neander, Dogmengesch. i. p. 426, and, in part against Rückert, Kahnis,
   Die Luth. Dogmatik, ii. p. 211 f

   [1003] En tupo artou, which may mean either under the emblem of the
   bread (still existing as such), or under the outward form, sub specie
   panis. More naturally the former.

   [1004] Sussomos kaisunaimos autou.

   [1005] Orat. catech. magna, c. 37. Comp. Neander, l.c. i. p. 428, and
   Kahnis, ii. 213.

   [1006] Of an empexaitous odontas te sarkikaisumplakenai Comp. the
   passages from Chrysostomin Ebrard and Rückert, l.c., and Kahnis, ii. p.
   215 ff.

   [1007] De Trinit. viii. 13 sq. Comp. Rückert, l.c. p. 460 ff.

   [1008] De Mysteriis, c. 8 and 9, where a mutatio of the species
   elementorum by the word of Christ is spoken of, and the changing of
   Moses' rod into a serpent, and of the Nile into blood, is cited in
   illustration. The genuineness of this small work, however, is doubtful.
   Rückert considers Ambrosethe pillar of the mediaeval doctrine of the
   Supper, which he finds in his work De mysteries, and De initiandis.

   [1009] Serm. p. 42: "Ipse naturarum creator et dominus, qui producit de
   terra panem, de pane rursus, quia et potest et promisit, efficit
   proprium corpus, et qui de aqua vinum fecit, facit et de vino
   sanguinem." But, on the other hand, Gaudentius (bishop of Brixia) calls
   the supper a figure of the passion of Christ, and the bread the figure
   (figura) of the body of Christ (p. 43). Comp. Rückert, l.c. 477 f.

   [1010] Demonstr. evang. 1, c. 10; Theol. eccl. iii. c. 12, and the
   fragment of a tract, De paschate, published by Angelo Mai in Scriptorum
   veterum nova collectio, vol. i. p. 247. Comp. Neander, l.c. i. 430, and
   especially Steitz, second article (1865), pp. 97-106.

   [1011] To this result H. Voigt comes, after the most thorough
   investigation, in his learned monograph on the doctrine of Athanasius,
   Bremen, 1861, pp. 170-181, and since that time also Steitz, in his
   second article, already quoted, pp. 109-127. Möhler finds in the
   passage Ad Scrap. iv. 19 (the principal eucharistic declaration of
   Athanasius then known), the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Supper
   (Athanasius der Gr p. 560 ff.), but by a manifestly strained
   interpretation, and in contradiction with passages in the more recently
   known Festival Letters of Athanasius, which confirm the exposition of
   Voigt.

   [1012] So in the main passage, the fourth Epistle to Serapion (Ad
   Scrap. iv. 19), which properly treats of the sin against the Holy Ghost
   (c. 8-23), and has been variously interpreted in the interest of
   different confessions, but now receives new light from several passages
   in the recently discovered Syriac Festival Letters of Athanasius,
   translated by Larsow, Leipzig, 1852, pp. 59, 78 sqq., 153 sqq., and
   especially p. 101.

   [1013] In the Festival Letters in Larsow, p. 101, Athanasius says: "And
   not only, my brethren, is this bread [of the Eucharist] a food of the
   righteous, and not only are the saints who dwell on earth nourished
   with such bread and blood, but also in heaven we eat such food; for
   even to the higher spirits and the angels the Lord is nutriment, and He
   is the delight of all the powers of heaven; to all He is all, and over
   every one He yearns in His love of man."

   [1014] Orat. xvii. 12; viii. 17; iv. 52. Comp. Ullmann's Gregor. v.
   Naz. pp. 483-488; Neander, l.c. i. p. 431; and Steitz in Dorner's
   Jahrbücher for 1865, pp. 133-141. Steitz makes Gregory an advocate of
   the symbolical theory.

   [1015] Epist. viii. c. 4 (or Ep. 141 in the older editions):
   Trogomengarautoutensarkakaipinomenautoutohaima, koinonoiginomenoidiates
   enanthropeseos kaites aisthetes zoes toulogoukaites sophias.
   Sarkagarkaihaimapasanautoutenmustikenepidemian[i. e., a spiritual
   incarnation, or His internal coming to the soul, as distinct from His
   historical incarnation] onomasekaitenekpraktikes kaiphusikes
   kaitheologikes sunestosandidaskalian, dihes trephetaipsuchekaipros
   tonontontheorianparaskeuazetai. Kaitoutoestitoektourhetouisos
   deloumenon. This passage, overlooked by Klose, Ebrard, and Kahnis, but
   noticed by Rückert and more fully by Steitz (l.c. p. 127 ff.), in favor
   of the symbolical view, is the principal one in Basil on the Eucharist,
   and must regulate the interpretation of the less important allusions in
   his other writings.

   [1016] Hom. xxvii. 17, and other passages. Steitz (l.c. p. 142 ff.)
   enters more fully into the views of this monk of the Egyptian desert.

   [1017] Dial. ii. Opera ed. Hal. tom. iv. p. 126, where the orthodox man
   says against the Eranist: Tamustikasumbola... meneiepites proteras
   ousias kaitouschematos kaitoueidous, kaihorataestikaihapta,
   oiakaiproteronhen.

   [1018] Proskuneitaihos ekeinaontahaperpisteuetai.These words certainly
   prove that the consecrated elements are regarded as being not only
   subjectively, but in some sense objectively and really what the
   believer takes them for, namely, the body and blood of Christ. But with
   this they also retained, according to Theodoret, their natural reality
   and their symbolical character.

   [1019] Ep. ad Caesarium monach. (in Chrys. Opera, tom. iii. Pars
   altera, p. 897 of the new Paris ed. of Montfaucon after the
   Benedictine): "Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem
   nominamus: divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote,
   liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis; dignus autem habitus
   dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit,
   et non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii praedicamus." This epistle is
   extant in full only in an old Latin version.

   [1020] De duabus naturis in Christo Adv. Eutychen et Nestorium (in the
   Bibl. Max. Patrum, tom. viii. p. 703) ... "et tamen esse non desinit
   substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo
   corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur." Many
   Roman divines, through dogmatic prejudice, doubt the genuineness of
   this epistle. Comp. the Bibl. Max. tom. viii. pp. 699-700.

   [1021] From his immense dogmatic authority, Augustinehas been an apple
   of contention among the different confessions in all controversies on
   the doctrine of the Supper. Albertinus (De euchar. pp. 602-742) and
   Rückert (l.c. p. 353 ff.) have successfully proved that he is no
   witness for the Roman doctrine; but they go too far when they make him
   a mere symbolist. That he as little favors the Lutheran doctrine,
   Kahnis (Vom Abendmahl, p. 221, and in the second part of his Luth.
   Dogmatik, p. 207) frankly concedes.

   [1022] In Psalm. iii. 1: "Convivium, in quo corporis et sanguinis sui
   figuram discipulis commendavit." Contra Adamant. xii. 3 ("signum
   corporis sui"); Contra advers. legis et prophet. ii. c. 9; Epist. 23;
   De Doctr. Christ. iii. 10, 16, 19; De Civit. Dei, xxi. c. 20, 25; De
   peccat. mer. ac rem. ii. 20 "quamvis non sit corpus Christi, sanctum
   est tamen, quoniam sacramentum est").

   [1023] Tract. in Joh. 25: "Quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede, et
   manducasti." Comp. Tract. 26: "Qui non manet in Christo, nec manducat
   carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem licet premat dentibus sacramentum
   corporis et sanguinis Christi."

   [1024] De Trinit. iii. 10: "Honorem tamquam religiosa possunt habere,
   stuporem tamquam mira non possunt."

   [1025] Ep. 146: "Ego Domini corpus ita in coelo esse credo, ut erat in
   terra, quando ascendit in coelum." Comp. similar passages in Tract. in
   Joh. 13; Ep. 187; Serm. 264.

   [1026] "Spiritualis alimonia." This expression, however, as the
   connection of the passage in Serm. lix. 2 clearly shows, by no means
   excludes an operation of the sacrament on the body; for "spiritual" is
   often equivalent to "supernatural." Even Ignatius called the bread of
   the Supper "a medicine of immortality, and all antidote of death"
   (pharmakon athanasias, antidotos tou me apothanein, alla zen en Christo
   dia pantos'Ad Ephes. c. 20; though this passage is wanting in the
   shorter Syriac recension.

   [1027] Comp. the relevant passages from the writings of Leo in Perthel,
   Papst Leo 1. Leben u. Lehren, p. 216 ff., and in Rückert, l.c. p. 479
   ff. Leo's doctrine of the Supper is not so clearly defined as his
   doctrine of baptism, and has little that is peculiar. But he certainly
   had a higher than a purely symbolic view of the sacrament and of the
   sacrifice of the Eucharist.

   [1028] In the liturgy of St. Mark (in Neale's ed.: The Liturgies of S.
   Mark, S. James, S. Clement, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, Lond. 1859, p.
   26): Hina auta hagiase kai teleiose ... kai poiese ton men arton soma,
   to which the congregation answers: Amen.

   [1029] In the liturgy of St. James (in Neale, p. 64): Hina ... hagiase
   kai poiese ton men arton touton soma hagion tou Christou sou, k. t. l.

   [1030] The liturgy of St. Chrysostom(Neale, p. 137) uses the terms
   eulogeson and poieson.

   [1031] Hom. 24 in I Cor.

   [1032] De Spir. S. iii. II: "Quam [carnem Christi] hodie in mysteriis
   adoramus, et quam apostoli in Domino Jesu adoraverant."

   [1033] In Psalm. 98, n. 9: "Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem
   dedit; nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit ... et
   non modo non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando."

   [1034] So says also the Roman liturgist Muratori, De rebus liturgicis,
   c. xix. p. 227: "Uti omnes inter Catholicos eruditi fatentur, post
   Berengarii haeresiam ritus in Catholica Romana ecclesia invaluit,
   scilicet post consecrationem elevare hostiam et calicem, ut a populo
   adoretur corpus et sanguis Domini." Freeman, Principles of Div.
   Service, Introduction to Part ii. p. 169, asserts: "The Church
   throughout the world, down to the period of the unhappy change of
   doctrine in the Western church in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
   never worshipped either the consecrated elements on account of their
   being the body and blood of Christ, or the presence of that body and
   blood; nor again, either Christ Himself as supernaturally present by
   consecration, or the presence of His divinity; neither have the
   churches of God to this hour, with the exception of those of the Roman
   obedience, any such custom."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 96. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

   Besides the works already cited on the holy Supper, comp. Höfling: Die
   Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben u. Cultus der Kirche.
   Erlangen, 1851. The articles: Messe, Messopfer, in Wetzer u. Welte:
   Kirchenlexicon der kathol. Theologie, vol. vii. (1851), p. 83 ff. G. E.
   Steitz: Art. Messe u. Messopfer in Herzog's Protest. Real-Encyklopädie,
   vol. ix. (1858), pp. 375-408. Phil. Freeman: The Principles of Divine
   Service. Part ii. Oxf. and Lond. 1862. This last work sets out with a
   very full consideration of the Mosaic sacrificial cultus, and (in the
   Pref. p. vi.) unjustly declares all the earlier English and German
   works of Mede, Outram, Patrick, Magee, Bähr, Hengstenberg, and Kurtz,
   on this subject, entirely unsatisfactory and defective.

   The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not
   only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but
   at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers
   really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements.
   For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must
   be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman
   Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question. The importance
   of the subject demands a preliminary explanation of the idea of
   sacrifice, and a clear discrimination of its original Christian form
   from its later perversion by tradition.

   The idea of sacrifice is the centre of all ancient religions, both the
   heathen and the Jewish. In Christianity it is fulfilled. For by His one
   perfect sacrifice on the cross Christ has entirely blotted out the
   guilt of man, and reconciled him with the righteous God. On the ground
   of this sacrifice of the eternal High Priest, believers have access to
   the throne of grace, and may expect their prayers and intercessions to
   be heard. With this perfect and eternally availing sacrifice the
   Eucharist stands in indissoluble connection. It is indeed originally a
   sacrament and the main thing in it is that which we receive from God,
   not that which we give to God. The latter is only a consequence of the
   former; for we can give to God nothing which we have not first received
   from him. But the Eucharist is the sacramentum of a sacrificium, the
   thankful celebration of the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross,
   and the believing participation or the renewed appropriation of the
   fruits of this sacrifice. In other words, it is a feast on a sacrifice.
   "As oft as ye do eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the
   Lord's death till He come."

   The Eucharist is moreover, as the name itself implies, on the part of
   the church a living and reasonable thank-offering, wherein she presents
   herself anew, in Christ and on the ground of his sacrifice, to God with
   prayers and intercessions. For only in Christ are our offerings
   acceptable to God, and only through the continual showing forth and
   presenting of His merit can we expect our prayers and intercessions to
   be heard.

   In this view certainly, in a deep symbolical and ethical sense, Christ
   is offered to God the Father in every believing prayer, and above all
   in the holy Supper; i.e. as the sole ground of our reconciliation and
   acceptance. This is the deep truth which lies at the bottom of the
   Catholic mass, and gives it still such power over the religious mind.
   [1035]

   But this idea in process of time became adulterated with foreign
   elements, and transformed into the Graeco-Roman doctrine of the
   sacrifice of the mass. According to this doctrine the Eucharist is an
   unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ by the
   priesthood for the salvation of the living and the dead; so that the
   body of Christ is truly and literally offered every day and every hour,
   and upon innumerable altars at the same time. The term mass, which
   properly denoted the dismissal of the congregation (missio, dismissio)
   at the close of the general public worship, became, after the end of
   the fourth century, the name for the worship of the faithful, [1036]
   which consisted in the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice and the
   communion. The corresponding terms of the Orientals are leitourgia,
   thusia, prosphora.

   In the sacrifice of the mass the whole mysterious fulness and glory of
   the Catholic worship is concentrated. Here the idea of the priesthood
   reaches its dizzy summit; and here the devotion and awe of the
   spectators rises to the highest pitch of adoration. For to the devout
   Catholic nothing can be greater or more solemn than an act of worship
   in which the eternal Son of God is veritably offered to God upon the
   altar by the visible hand of the priest for the sins of the world. But
   though the Catholic worship here rises far above the vain sacrifices of
   heathendom and the merely typical sacrifices of Judaism, yet that old
   sacrificial service, which was interwoven with the whole popular life
   of the Jewish and Graeco-Roman world, exerted a controlling influence
   on the Roman Catholic service of the Eucharist, especially after the
   nominal conversion of the whole Roman heathendom, and obscured the
   original simplicity and purity of that service almost beyond
   recognition. The sacramentum became entirely eclipsed by the
   sacrificium, and the sacrificium became grossly materialized, and was
   exalted at the expense of the sacrifice on the cross. The endless
   succession of necessary repetitions detracts from the sacrifice of
   Christ.

   The Biblical support of the sacrifice of the mass is weak, and may be
   reduced to an unduly literal interpretation or a downright perversion
   of some such passages as Mal. i. 10 f.; 1 Cor. x. 21; Heb. v. 6; vii. 1
   f.; xiii. 10. The Epistle to the Hebrews especially is often
   misapplied, though it teaches with great emphasis the very opposite,
   viz., the abolition of the Old Testament sacrificial system by the
   Christian worship, the eternal validity of the sacrifice of our only
   High Priest on the right hand of the Father, and the impossibility of a
   repetition of it (comp. x. 14; vii. 23, 24).

   We pass now to the more particular history. The ante-Nicene fathers
   uniformly conceived the Eucharist as a thank-offering of the church;
   the congregation offering the consecrated elements of bread and wine,
   and in them itself, to God. [1037] This view is in itself perfectly
   innocent, but readily leads to the doctrine of the sacrifice of the
   mass, as soon as the elements become identified with the body and blood
   of Christ, and the presence of the body comes to be materialistically
   taken. The germs of the Roman doctrine appear in Cyprian about the
   middle of the third century, in connection with his high-churchly
   doctrine of the clerical priesthood. Sacerdotium and sacrificium are
   with him correlative ideas, and a Judaizing conception of the former
   favored a like Judaizing conception of the latter. The priest
   officiates in the Eucharist in the place of Christ, [1038] and performs
   an actual sacrifice in the church. [1039] Yet Cyprian does not
   distinctly say that Christ is the subject of the spiritual sacrifice;
   rather is the mystical body of Christ, the Church, offered to God, and
   married with Christ. [1040]

   The doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass is much further developed in
   the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, though amidst many obscurities and
   rhetorical extravagances, and with much wavering between symbolical and
   grossly realistic conceptions, until in all essential points it is
   brought to its settlement by Gregory the Great at the close of the
   sixth century. These points are the following:

   1. The eucharistic sacrifice is the most solemn mystery of the church,
   and fills the faithful with a holy awe. Hence the predicates thusia
   phobera, phrikte, anaimaktos, sacrificium tremendum, which are
   frequently applied to it, especially in the Oriental liturgies and
   homilies. Thus it is said in the liturgy of St. James: "We offer to
   Thee, O Lord, this awful and unbloody sacrifice." The more surprising
   is it that the people should have been indifferent to so solemn an act,
   and that Chrysostom should lament: "In vain is the daily sacrifice, in
   vain stand we at the altar; there is no one to take part." [1041]

   2. It is not a new sacrifice added to that of the cross, but a daily,
   unbloody repetition and perpetual application of that one only
   sacrifice. Augustine represents it, on the one hand, as a sacramentum
   memoriae a symbolical commemoration of the sacrificial death of Christ;
   to which of course there is no objection. [1042] But, on the other
   hand, he calls the celebration of the communion verissimum sacrificium
   of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (immolat) to God the
   sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ, from the days of the
   apostles through the sure succession of the bishops down to our time.
   But the church at the same time offers, with Christ, herself, as the
   body of Christ, to God. As all are one body, so also all are together
   the same sacrifice. [1043] According to Chrysostom the same Christ, and
   the whole Christ, is everywhere offered. It is not a different
   sacrifice from that which the High Priest formerly offered, but we
   offer always the same sacrifice, or rather, we perform a memorial of
   this sacrifice. [1044] This last clause would decidedly favor a
   symbolical conception, if Chrysostom in other places had not used such
   strong expressions as this: "When thou seest the Lord slain, and lying
   there, and the priest standing at the sacrifice," or: "Christ lies
   slain upon the altar." [1045]

   3. The sacrifice is the anti-type of the Mosaic sacrifice, and is
   related to it as substance to typical shadows. It is also especially
   foreshadowed by Melchizedek's unbloody offering of bread and wine. The
   sacrifice of Melchizedek is therefore made of great account by Hilary,
   Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and other church fathers, on the
   strength of the well-known parallel in the seventh chapter of the
   Epistle to the Hebrews.

   4. The subject of the sacrifice is the body of Jesus Christ, which is
   as truly present on the altar of the church, as it once was on the
   altar of the cross, and which now offers itself to God through his
   priest. Hence the frequent language of the liturgies: "Thou art he who
   offerest, and who art offered, O Christ, our God." Augustine, however,
   connects with this, as we have already said, the true and important
   moral idea of the self-sacrifice of the whole redeemed church to God.
   The prayers of the liturgies do the same. [1046]

   5. The offering of the sacrifice is the exclusive prerogative of the
   Christian priest. Later Roman divines take the words: "This do
   (poieite) in remembrance of me," as equivalent to: "This offer," and
   limit this command to the apostles and their successors in office,
   whereas it is evidently an exhortation to all believers to the
   commemoration of the atoning death, the communio sacramenti, and not to
   the immolatio sacrificii.

   6. The sacrifice is efficacious for the whole body of the church,
   including its departed members, in procuring the gifts which are
   implored in the prayers of the service.

   All the old liturgies proceed under a conviction of the unbroken
   communion of saints, and contain commemorations and intercessions for
   the departed fathers and brethren, who are conceived to be, not in
   purgatory, but in communion with God and in a condition of progressive
   holiness and blessedness, looking forward in pious longing to the great
   day of consummation.

   These prayers for an increase of bliss, which appeared afterwards very
   inappropriate, form the transition from the original simple
   commemoration of the departed saints, including the patriarchs,
   prophets and apostles, to intercessions for the suffering souls in
   purgatory, as used in the Roman church ever since the sixth century.
   [1047] In the liturgy of Chrysostom, still in use in the Greek and
   Russian church, the commemoration of the departed reads. "And further
   we offer to thee this reasonable service on behalf of those who have
   departed in the faith, our ancestors, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets,
   Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, and
   every just spirit made perfect in the faith .... Especially the most
   holy, undefiled, excellently laudable, glorious Lady, the Mother of God
   and Ever-Virgin Mary .... the holy John the Prophet, Forerunner and
   Baptist, the holy, glorious and all-celebrated Apostles, and all thy
   Saints, through whose prayers look upon us, O God. And remember all
   those that are departed in the hope of the resurrection to eternal
   life, and give them rest where the light of Thy countenance shines upon
   them."

   Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fifth and last mystagogic Catechesis, which
   is devoted to the consideration of the eucharistic sacrifice and the
   liturgical service of God, gives the following description of the
   eucharistic intercessions for the departed: "When the spiritual
   sacrifice, the unbloody service of God, is performed, we pray to God
   over this atoning sacrifice for the universal peace of the church, for
   the welfare of the world, for the emperor, for soldiers and prisoners,
   for the sick and afflicted, for all the poor and needy. Then we
   commemorate also those who sleep, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles,
   martyrs, that God through their prayers and their intercessions may
   receive our prayer; and in general we pray for all who have gone from
   us, since we believe that it is of the greatest help to those souls for
   whom the prayer is offered, while the holy sacrifice, exciting a holy
   awe, lies before us." [1048]

   This is clearly an approach to the later idea of purgatory in the Latin
   church. Even St. Augustine, with Tertullian, teaches plainly, as an old
   tradition, that the eucharistic sacrifice, the intercessions or
   suffragia and alms, of the living are of benefit to the departed
   believers, so that the Lord deals more mercifully with them than their
   sins deserve. [1049] His noble mother, Monica, when dying, told him he
   might bury her body where he pleased, and should give himself no
   concern for it, only she begged of him that he would remember her soul
   at the altar of the Lord. [1050]

   With this is connected the idea of a repentance and purification in the
   intermediate state between death and resurrection, which likewise
   Augustine derives from Matt. xii. 32, and 1 Cor. iii. 15, yet mainly as
   a mere opinion. [1051] From these and similar passages, and under the
   influence of previous Jewish and heathen ideas and customs, arose,
   after Gregory the Great, the Roman doctrine of the purgatorial fire for
   imperfect believers who still need to be purified from the dross of
   their sins before they are fit for heaven, and the institution of
   special masses for the dead, in which the perversion of the thankful
   remembrance of the one eternally availing sacrifice of Christ reaches
   its height, and the idea of the communion utterly disappears. [1052]

   In general, in the celebration of the Lord's Supper the sacrament
   continually retired behind the sacrifice. In the Roman churches in all
   countries one may see and hear splendid masses at the high altar, where
   the congregation of the faithful, instead of taking part in the
   communion, are mere spectators of the sacrificial act of the priest.
   The communion is frequently despatched at a side altar at an early hour
   in the morning.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1035] Freeman states the result of his investigation of the Biblical
   sacrificial cultus and of the doctrine of the old Catholic church on
   the eucharistic sacrifice, as follows, on p. 280: "It is enough for us
   that the holy Eucharist is all that the ancient types foreshowed that
   it would be; that in it we present 'memorially,' yet truly and with
   prevailing power, by the consecrating Hands of our Great High Priest,
   the wondrous Sacrifice once for all offered by Him at the Eucharistic
   Institution, consummated on the Cross, and ever since presented and
   pleaded by Him, Risen and Ascended, in Heaven; that our material Gifts
   are identified with that awful Reality, and as such are borne in upon
   the Incense of His Intercession, and in His Holy Hands, into the True
   Holiest Place: that we ourselves, therewith, are home in thither
   likewise, and abide in a deep mystery in the heavenly places in Christ
   Jesus; that thus we have all manner of acceptance,--sonship, kingship,
   and priesthood unto God; an our whole life, in all its complex action,
   being sanctified and purified for such access, and abiding continually
   in a heavenly sphere of acceptableness and privilege.--Enough for us,
   again, that on the sacramental side of the mystery, we have been thus
   privileged to give to God His own Gift of Himself to dwell in us, and
   we in Him;---that we thereby possess an evermore renewedly dedicated
   being--strengthened with all might, and evermore made one with Him.
   Profoundly reverencing Christ's peculiar Presence in us and around us
   in the celebration of such awful mysteries, we nevertheless take as the
   watchword of our deeply mysterious Eucharistic worship, 'Sursum corda,'
   and 'Our life is hid with Christ in God.' "

   [1036] The missa fidelium, in distinction from the missa
   catechumenorum. Comp. 90 above.

   [1037] Comp. vol. i. § 102, p. 389 ff.

   [1038] "Vice Christi vere fungitur."

   [1039] "Sacrificium verum et plenum offert in ecclesia Patri."

   [1040] Epist. 63 ad Caecil.c. 14. Augustine's view is similar: the
   church offering herself to God in and with Christ as her Head.

   [1041] Hom. iii. in Ep. ad Ephes. (new Par. Bened. ed. tom. xi. p. 26):
   Eike thusia kathemerine, eike parestekamen to thusiasterio, oudeis ho
   metechon, i.e., Frustra est quotidianum sacrificium, frustra adstamus
   altari: nemo est qui participet.

   [1042] Contr. Faust. Manich. l. xx. 18: "Unde jam Christiani, peracti
   ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, sacrosancta oblatione et
   participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi." Comp. l. xx. 21. This
   agrees with Augustine's symbolical conception of the consecrated
   elements as signal imagines, similitudines corporis et sanguinis
   Christi. Steitz, l.c. p. 379, would make him altogether a symbolist,
   but does not succeed; comp. the preceding section, and Neander,
   Dogmengesch. i. p. 432.

   [1043] De Civit. Dei, x. 20: "Per hoc [homo Jesus Christus] et sacerdos
   est ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Cujus rei sacramentum quotidianum
   esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit,
   se ipsam per ipsum offere discit." And the faithful in heaven form with
   us one sacrifice, since they with us are one civitas Dei.

   [1044] Hom. xvii. in Ep. ad Hebr. tom. xii. pp. 241 and 242: Touto gar
   poieite phesin, eis ten emen anamnesin. Ouk allen thusian, kathaper ho
   archiereus tote, alla ten auten aei poioumen? mallon de anamnesin
   ergazometha thusias.

   [1045] De sacerd. iii. c. 4 (tom. i. 467): Hotanides
   tonKuriontethumenonkaikeimenon, kaitonhiereaephestotatothumati,
   kaiepeuchomenon, k. t. l. Homil. xv. ad Popul. Antioch. c. 5 (tom. ii.
   p. 187): EnthahoChristos keitaitethumenos. Comp. Hom. in tom. ii. p.
   394, where it is said of the sacrifice of the Eucharist: Thusia
   proserche phriktekaiagia? esphagmenos prokeitaihoChristos.

   [1046] Freeman regards this as the main thing in the old liturgies. "In
   all liturgies," says he, l.c. p. 190, "the Church has manifestly two
   distinct though closely connected objects in view. The first is, to
   offer herself in Christ to God; or rather, in strictness and as the
   highest conception of her aim, to procure that she may be offered by
   Christ Himself, and as in Christ, to the Father. And the second object,
   as the crowning and completing feature of the rite, and woven up with
   the other in one unbroken chain of service, is to obtain communion
   through Christ with God; or, more precisely again, that Christ may
   Himself give her, through Himself, such communion."

   [1047] Neale has collected in an appendix to his English edition of the
   old liturgies (The Liturgies of S. Mark, S. James, etc., Lond. 1859, p.
   216 ff.) the finest liturgical prayers of the ancient church for the
   departed saints, and deduces from them the positions, "(1) that prayers
   for the dead, and more especially the oblation of the blessed Eucharist
   for them, have been from the beginning the practice of the Universal
   Church. (2) And this without any idea of a purgatory of pain, or of any
   state from which the departed soul has to be delivered as from one of
   misery." The second point needs qualification.

   [1048] Tes hagias kaiphrikodestates prokeimenes thusias, Catech. xxiii.
   8.

   [1049] Serm. 172, 2 (Opp. tom. v. 1196): "Orationibus sanctae
   ecclesiae, et sacrificio salutari, et eleemosynis, quae pro eorum
   spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuos adjuvari, ut cum eis
   misericordius agatur a Domino." He expressly limits this effect,
   however, to those who have departed in the faith.

   [1050] Confess. l. ix. 27: "Tantum illud vos rogo, ut ad Domini altare
   memineritis mei, ubi fueritis." Tertullianconsiders it the duty of a
   devout widow to pray for the soul of her husband, and to offer a
   sacrifice on the anniversary of his death; De monogam. c. 10. Comp. De
   corona, c. 2: "Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annua die
   facimus."

   [1051] De Civit. Dei, xxi. 24, and elsewhere. The passages of
   Augustineand the other fathers in favor of the doctrine of purgatory
   are collected in the much-cited work of Berington and Kirk: The Faith
   of Catholics, etc., vol. iii. pp. 140-207.

   [1052] There are silent masses, missae solitariae, at which usually no
   one is present but the priest, with the attendant boys, who offers to
   God at a certain tariff the magically produced body of Christ for the
   deliverance of a soul from purgatory. This institution has also a
   heathen precedent in the old Roman custom of offering sacrifices to the
   Manes of beloved dead. On Gregory's doctrine of the mass, which belongs
   in the next period, comp. the monograph of Lau, p. 484f. The horrible
   abuse of these masses for the dead, and their close connection with
   superstitious impostures of purgatory and of indulgence, explain the
   moral anger of the Reformers at the mass, and the strong declarations
   against it in several symbolical books, especially in the Smalcald
   Articles by Luther (ii. 2, where the mass is called draconis cauda),
   and in the Heidelberg Catechism (the 80th question, which, by the way,
   is wanting entirely in the first edition of 1563, and was first
   inserted in the second edition by express command of the Elector
   Friedrich III., and in the third edition was enriched with the epithet
   "damnable idolatry").
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 97. The Celebration of the Eucharist.

   Comp. the Liturgical Literature cited in the next section, especially
   the works of Daniel, Neale, and Freeman.

   The celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice and of the communion was
   the centre and summit of the public worship of the Lord's day, and all
   other parts of worship served as preparation and accompaniment. The old
   liturgies are essentially, and almost exclusively, eucharistic prayers
   and exercises; they contain nothing besides, except some baptismal
   formulas and prayers for the catechumens. The word liturgy
   (leitourgia), which properly embraces all parts of the worship of God,
   denotes in the narrower sense a celebration of the eucharist or the
   mass.

   Here lies a cardinal difference between the Catholic and Evangelical
   cultus: in the former the sacrifice of the mass, in the latter the
   sermon, is the centre.

   With all variations in particulars, especially in the introductory
   portions, the old Catholic liturgies agree in the essential points,
   particularly in the prayers which immediately precede and follow the
   consecration of the elements. They all (excepting some Syriac copies of
   certain Nestorian and Monophysite formularies) repeat the solemn Words
   of Institution from the Gospels, [1053] understanding them not merely
   in a declaratory but in an operative sense; they all contain the acts
   of Consecration, Intercession, and Communion; all (except the Roman)
   invoke the Holy Ghost upon the elements to sanctify them, and make them
   actual vehicles of the body and blood of Christ; all conceive the
   Eucharist primarily as a sacrifice, and then, on the basis of the
   sacrifice, as a communion.

   The eucharistic action in the narrower sense is called the Anaphora, or
   the canon missae, and begins after the close of the service of the
   catechumens (which consisted principally of reading and preaching, and
   extended to the Offertory, i.e., the preparation of the bread and wine,
   and the placing of it on the altar). It is introduced with the Ano tas
   kardias, or Sursum corda, of the priest: the exhortation to the
   faithful to lift up their hearts in devotion, and take part in the
   prayers; to which the congregation answers: Habemus ad Dominum, "We
   lift them up unto the Lord." Then follows the exhortation: "Let us give
   thanks to the Lord," with the response: "It is meet and right." [1054]

   The first principal act of the Anaphora is the great prayer of
   thanksgiving, the eulogiaor eucharistia, after the example of the
   Saviour in the institution of the Supper. In this prayer the priest
   thanks God for all the gifts of creation and of redemption, and the
   choir generally concludes the thanksgiving with the so-called Trisagion
   or Seraphic Hymn (Is. vi. 3), and the triumphal Hosanna (Matt. xx. 9):
   "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of Thy
   glory. Hosanna in the highest: blessed is He that cometh in the name of
   the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

   Then follows the consecration and oblation of the elements, by the
   commemoration of the great facts in the life of Christ, by the
   rehearsing of the Words of Institution from the Gospels or from Paul,
   and by the invocation of the Holy Ghost, who brings to pass the
   mysterious change of the bread and wine into the sacramental body and
   blood of Christ. [1055] This invocation of the Holy Ghost [1056]
   appears in all the Oriental liturgies, but is wanting in the Latin
   church, which ascribes the consecration exclusively to the virtue of
   Christ's Words of Institution. The form of the Words of Institution is
   different in the different liturgies. [1057] The elevation of the
   consecrated elements was introduced in the Latin church, though not
   till after the Berengarian controversies in the eleventh century, to
   give the people occasion to show, by the adoration of the host, their
   faith in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.

   To add an example: The prayer of consecration and oblation in one of
   the oldest and most important of the liturgies, that of St. James, runs
   thus: After the Words of Institution the priest proceeds:

   "Priest: We sinners, remembering His life-giving passion, His saving
   cross, His death, and His resurrection from the dead on the third day,
   His ascension to heaven, and His sitting at the right hand of Thee His
   God and Father, and His glorious and terrible second appearing, when He
   shall come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to render to
   every man according to his works,--offer to Thee, O Lord, this awful
   and unbloody sacrifice; [1058] beseeching Thee that Thou wouldst deal
   with us not after our sins nor reward us according to our iniquities,
   but according to Thy goodness and unspeakable love to men wouldst blot
   out the handwriting which is against us Thy suppliants, and wouldst
   vouchsafe to us Thy heavenly and eternal gifts, which eye hath not
   seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man what
   Thou, O God, hast prepared for them that love Thee. And reject not Thy
   people, O loving Lord, for my sake and on account of my sins.

   He repeats thrice: For Thy people and Thy Church prayeth to Thee.

   People: Have mercy upon us, O Lord God, almighty Father!

   Priest: Have mercy upon us, almighty God!

   Have mercy upon us, O God, our Redeemer I

   Have mercy upon us, O God, according to Thy great mercy, and send upon
   us, and upon these gifts here present, Thy most holy Spirit, Lord,
   Giver of life, who with Thee the God and Father, and with Thine only
   begotten Son, sitteth and reigneth upon one throne, and is of the same
   essence and co-eternal, [1059] who spoke in the law and in the
   prophets, and in Thy new covenant, who descended in the form of a dove
   upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon Him,
   who came down upon Thy holy apostles in the form of tongues of fire in
   the upper room of Thy holy and glorious Zion on the day of Pentecost:
   send down, O Lord, the same Holy Ghost upon us and upon these holy
   gifts here present, that with His holy and good and glorious presence
   He may sanctify this bread and make it the holy body of Thy Christ.
   [1060]

   People: Amen.

   Priest: And this cup the dear blood of Thy Christ.

   People: Amen.

   Priest (in a low voice): That they may avail to those who receive them,
   for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life, for the
   sanctification of soul and body, for the bringing forth of good works,
   for the strengthening of Thy holy Catholic church which Thou hast built
   upon the rock of faith, that the gates of hell may not prevail against
   her; delivering her from all error and all scandal, and from the
   ungodly, and preserving her unto the consummation of all things."

   After the act of consecration come the intercessions, sometimes very
   long, for the church, for all classes, for the living, and for the dead
   from righteous Abel to Mary, the apostles, the martyrs, and the saints
   in Paradise; and finally the Lord's Prayer. To the several
   intercessions, and the Lord's Prayer, the people or the choir responds
   Amen. With this closes the act of eucharistic sacrifice.

   Now follows the communion, or the participation of the consecrated
   elements. It is introduced with the words: "Holy things for holy
   persons," [1061] and the Kyrie eleison, or (as in the Clementine
   liturgy) the Gloria in Excelsis: "Glory be to God on high, peace on
   earth, and good will to men. [1062] Hosanna to the Son of David!
   Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: God is the Lord, and
   he hath appeared among us." The bishop and the clergy communicate
   first, and then the people. The formula of distribution in the
   Clementine liturgy is simply: "The body of Christ;" "The blood of
   Christ, the cup of life," [1063] to which the receiver answers "Amen."
   In other liturgies it is longer. [1064]

   The holy act closes with prayers of thanksgiving, psalms, and the
   benediction.

   The Eucharist was celebrated daily, or at least every Sunday. The
   people were exhorted to frequent communion, especially on the high
   festivals. In North Africa some communed every day, others every
   Sunday, others still less frequently. [1065] Augustine leaves this to
   the needs of every believer, but says in one place: "The Eucharist is
   our daily bread." The daily communion was connected with the current
   mystical interpretation of the fourth petition in the Lord's Prayer.
   Basil communed four times in the week. Gennadius of Massilia commends
   at least weekly communion. In the East it seems to have been the
   custom, after the fourth century, to commune only once a year, or on
   great occasions. Chrysostom often complains of the indifference of
   those who come to church only to hear the sermon, or who attend the
   eucharistic sacrifice, but do not commune. One of his allusions to this
   neglect we have already quoted. Some later councils threatened all
   laymen with excommunication, who did not commune at least on Christmas,
   Easter, and Pentecost.

   In the Oriental and North African churches prevailed the incongruous
   custom of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism,
   and was advocated by Augustine and Innocent I. on the authority of John
   vi. 53. In the Greek church this custom continues to this day, but in
   the Latin, after the ninth century, it was disputed or forbidden,
   because the apostle (1 Cor. xi. 28, 29) requires self-examination as
   the condition of worthy participation. [1066]

   With this custom appear the first instances, and they exceptional, of a
   communio sub una specie; after a little girl in Carthage in the time of
   Cyprian had been made drunk by receiving the wine. But the withholding
   of the cup from the laity, which transgresses the express command of
   the Lord: "Drink ye all of it," and is associated with a superstitious
   horror of profaning the blood of the Lord by spilling, and with the
   development of the power of the priesthood, dates only from the twelfth
   and thirteenth centuries and was then justified by the scholastic
   doctrine of concomitance.

   In the Greek church it was customary to dip the bread in the wine, and
   deliver both elements in a spoon.

   The customs of house-communion and after-communion for the sick and for
   prisoners, of distributing the unconsecrated remainder of the bread
   among the non-communicants, and of sending the consecrated elements, or
   their substitutes, [1067] to distant bishops or churches at Easter as a
   token of fellowship, are very old.

   The Greek church used leavened bread, the Latin, unleavened. This
   difference ultimately led to intricate controversies.

   The mixing of the wine with water was considered essential, and was
   explained in various mystical ways; chiefly by reference to the blood
   and water which flowed from the side of Jesus on the cross.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1053] Though in various forms. See below.

   [1054] Or, according to the Liturgia S. Jacobi: Ano schomen ton noun
   kai tas kardias, with the response: Axion kai dikaion. In the Lit. S.
   Clem.: Priest: Ano ton noun. All (pantes): Echomen pros ton
   Kurion.--Eucharistesomen to Kurio. Resp.:Axion kai dikaion. In the Lit.
   S. Chrys. (still in use in the orthodox Greek and Russian church): Ho
   hiereus; Ano schomen tas kardias. Ho choros ; Echomen pro ton Kurion.
   Ho hiereus; Eucharistesomen to Kurio. Ho choros ; Axion kai dikaion
   esti proskunein Patera, Huion, kai agion Pneuma, Triada homoousion kai
   achoriston.

   [1055] Hence it is said, for example, in the Syriac version of the
   Liturgy of St. James: "How dreadful is this hour, in which the Holy
   Ghost hastens to come down from the heights of heaven, and broods over
   the Eucharist, and sanctifies it. In holy silence and fear stand and
   pray."

   [1056] Epiklesis Pneumatos hagiou, invocatio Spiritus Sancti.

   [1057] They are collected by Neale, in his English edition of the
   Primitive Liturgies, pp. 175-215, from 67 ancient liturgies in
   alphabetical order. Freeman says, rather too strongly, l.c. p. 364: "No
   two churches in the world have even the same Words of Institution."

   [1058] Prospheromen soi, Despota, ten phoberan tauten kai anaimakton
   thusian. The term phoberadenotes holy awe, and is previously applied
   also to the second coming of Christ: Tes deuteras endoxou kai phoberas
   autou parousias, sc. memnemenoi. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostomhas
   instead:Prospheromen soi ten lophiken tauten kai anaimakton
   latreian(doubtless with reference to thelogike latreia in Rom. xii 1).

   [1059] Exaposteilon eph hemas kai epi ta prokeimena dora tauta to
   Pneuma sou to panagion, [eita klinas ton auchena legei;] to kurion kai
   zoopoion, to sunthronon soi to Theo kai Patri, kai to monogenei sou
   Uio, to sumbasileuon, to homoousion te kai sunaidion. The homoousion,
   as well as the Nicene Creed in the preceding part of the Liturgy of St.
   James, indicates clearly a post-Nicene origin.

   [1060] HiIna ... agiase kai poiese ton men arton touton soma agion tou
   Christou sou.

   [1061] Ta hagia tois hagiois, Sancta Sanctis. It is a warning to the
   unworthy not to approach the table of the Lord.

   [1062] According to the usual reading en anthropois eudokia. But the
   older and better attested reading is eudokias, which alters the sense
   and makes the angelic hymn bimembris: "Glory to God in the highest, and
   on earth peace among men of His good pleasure (i.e., the chosen people
   of God)."

   [1063] Soma Christou --Haima Christou, poterion zoes.

   [1064] In the Liturgy of St. Mark::Soma hagion --Haima timion tou
   Kuriou kai Theou kaiSoteros hemon. In the Mozarabic Liturgy the
   communicating priest prays: "Corpus et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu
   Christi custodiat corpus et animam meam (tuam) in vitam aeternam."
   Resp.: "Amen." So in the Roman Liturgy, from which it passed into the
   Anglican.

   [1065] Augustine, Epist. 118 ad Janua c. 2: "Alii quotidie communicant
   corpori et sanguini Dominico; alii certis diebus accipiunt; alibi
   nullus dies intermittitur quo non offeratur; alii sabbato tantum et
   dominico; alibi tantum dominico."

   [1066] Comp. P. Zorn: Historia eucharistiae infantum, Berl. 1736; and
   the article by Kling in Herzog's Encykl. vii. 549 ff.

   [1067] These substitutes for the consecrated elements were called
   antidora (i.e., anti ton doron eucharistikon), and eulogiae (from the
   benediction at the close of the service).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 98. The Liturgies. Their Origin and Contents.

   J. Goar. (a learned Dominican, 1653): Euchologion, sive Rituale
   Graecorum, etc. Gr. et Lat. Par. 1647 (another ed. at Venice, 1740).
   Jos. Aloys. Assemani (R.C.): Codex Liturgicus ecclesiae universae, ...
   in quo continentur libri rituales, missales, pontificales, officia,
   dypticha, etc., ecclesiarum Occidentis et Orientis (published under the
   auspices of Pope Boniface XIV.). Rom. 1749-'66, 13 vols. Euseb.
   Renaudot (R.C.): Liturgiarum orientalium collectio. Par. 1716
   (reprinted 1847), 2 vols. L. A. Muratori (R.C., 1750): Liturgia Romana
   vetus. Venet. 1748, 2 vols. (contains the three Roman sacramentaries of
   Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory I., also the Missale Gothicum, and a learned
   introductory dissertation, De rebus liturgicis). W. Palmer (Anglican):
   Origines Liturgicae. Lond. 1832 (and 1845), 2 vols. (with special
   reference to the Anglican liturgy). Ths. Brett: A Collection of the
   Principal Liturgies used in the Christian Church in the celebration of
   the Eucharist, particularly the ancient (translated into English), with
   a Dissertation upon them. Lond. 1838 (pp. 465). W. Trollope (Anglican):
   The Greek Liturgy of St. James. Edinb. 1848. H. A. Daniel (Lutheran,
   the most learned German liturgist): Codex Liturgicus ecclesiae
   universae in epitomem redactus. Lips. 1847 sqq. 4 vols. (vol. i.
   contains the Roman, vol. iv. the Oriental Liturgies). Fr. J. Mone
   (R.C.): Lateinische u. Griechische Messen aus dem 2ten his 6ten
   Jahrhundert. Frankf. a. M. 1850 (with valuable treatises on the
   Gallican, African, and Roman Mass). J. M. Neale ( 1866, the most
   learned Anglican ritualist and liturgist, who studied the Eastern
   liturgies daily for thirty years, and almost knew them by heart);
   Tetralogia liturgica; sive S. Chrysostom, S. Jacobi, S. Marci divinae
   missae: quibus accedit ordo Mozarabicus. Lond. 1849. The Same: The
   Liturgies of S. Mark, S. James, S. Clement, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, or
   according to the use of the churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem,
   Constantinople. Lond. 1859 f. (in the Greek original, and the same
   liturgies in an English translation, with an introduction and
   appendices, also at Lond. 1859). Comp. also Neale's History of the Holy
   Eastern Church. Lond. 1850; Gen. Introd. vol. second; and his Essays on
   Liturgiology and Church History. Lond. 1863. (The latter, dedicated to
   the metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, is a collection of various learned
   treatises of the author from the "Christian Remembrancer" on the Roman
   and Gallican Breviary, the Church Collects, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian
   Liturgies, Liturgical Quotations, etc.) The already cited work, of
   kindred spirit, by the English Episcopal divine, Freeman, likewise
   treats much of the old Liturgies, with a predilection for the Western,
   while Neale has an especial reverence for the Eastern ritual. (Comp.
   also Bunsen: Christianity and Mankind, Lond. 1854, vol. vii., which
   contains Reliquiae Liturgicae; the Irvingite work: Readings upon the
   Liturgy and other Divine Offices of the Church. Lond. 1848-'54;
   Höfling: Liturgisches Urkundenbuch. Leipz. 1854.)

   Liturgy [1068] means, in ecclesiastical language, [1069] the order and
   administration of public worship in general, and the celebration of the
   Eucharist in particular; then, the book or collection of the prayers
   used in this celebration. The Latin church calls the public eucharistic
   service Mass, and the liturgical books, sacramentarium, rituale,
   missale, also libri mysteriorum, or simply libelli.

   The Jewish worship consisted more of acts than of words, but it
   included also fixed prayers and psalms (as Ps. 113-118) and the Amen of
   the congregation (Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16). The pagan Greeks and Romans
   had, in connection with their sacrifices, some fixed prayers and
   formulas of consecration, which, however, were not written) but
   perpetuated by oral tradition. The Indian literature, on the contrary,
   has liturgical books, and even the Koran contains prescribed forms of
   prayer.

   The New Testament gives us neither a liturgy nor a ritual, but the main
   elements for both. The Lord's Prayer, and the Words of the Institution
   of baptism and of the Holy Supper, are the living germs from which the
   best prayers and baptismal and eucharistic formulas of the church,
   whether oral or written, have grown. From the confession of Peter and
   the formula of baptism gradually arose in the Western church the
   Apostles' Creed, which besides its doctrinal import, has also a
   liturgical office, as a public profession of candidates for baptism and
   of the faithful. In the Eastern church the Nicene creed is used
   instead. The Song of the angelic host is the ground-work of the Gloria
   in Excelsis. The Apocalypse is one sublime liturgic vision. With these
   belong also the Psalms, which have passed as a legitimate inheritance
   to the Christian church, and have afforded at all times the richest
   material for public edification.

   In the ante-Nicene age we find as yet no traces of liturgical books. In
   each church, of course, a fixed order of worship gradually formed
   itself, which in apostolic congregations ran back to a more or less
   apostolic origin, but became enlarged and altered in time, and, until
   the fourth century, was perpetuated only by oral tradition. For the
   celebration of the sacraments, especially of the Eucharist, belonged to
   the Disciplina arcani, and was concealed, as the most holy thing of the
   church, from the gaze of Jews and heathens, and even of catechumens,
   for fear of profanation; through a misunderstanding of the warning of
   the Lord against casting pearls before swine, and after the example of
   the Samothracian and Eleusinian mysteries. [1070] On the downfall of
   heathenism in the Roman empire the Disciplina arcani gradually
   disappeared, and the administration of the sacraments became a public
   act, open to all.

   Hence also we now find, from the fourth and fifth centuries onward, a
   great number of written liturgies, and that not only in the orthodox
   catholic church, but also among the schismatics (as among the
   Nestorians, and the Monophysites). These liturgies bear in most cases
   apostolic names, but in their present form can no more be of apostolic
   origin than the so-called Apostolic Constitutions and Canons, nor
   nearly so much as the Apostles' Creed. They contrast too strongly with
   the simplicity of the original Christian worship, so far as we can
   infer it from the New Testament and from the writings of the apologists
   and the ante-Nicene fathers. They contain also theological terms, such
   as homoousios(concerning the Son of God), theotokos(concerning the
   Virgin Mary), and some of them the whole Nicene Creed with the
   additions of the second oecumenical council of 381, also allusions to
   the worship of martyrs and saints, and to monasticism, which point
   unmistakably to the Nicene and post-Nicene age. Yet they are based on a
   common liturgical tradition, which in its essential elements reaches
   back to an earlier time, perhaps in some points to the apostolic age,
   or even comes down from the Jewish worship through the channel of the
   Jewish Christian congregations. Otherwise their affinity, which in many
   respects reminds one of the affinity of the Synoptical Gospels cannot
   be satisfactorily explained. These old catholic liturgies differ from
   one another in the wording, the number, the length, and the order of
   the prayers, and in other unessential points, but agree in the most
   important parts of the service of the Eucharist. They are too different
   to be derived from a common original, and yet too similar to have
   arisen each entirely by itself. [1071]

   All the old liturgies combine action and prayer, and presuppose,
   according to the Jewish custom, the participation of the people, who
   frequently respond to the prayers of the priest, and thereby testify
   their own priestly character. These responses are sometimes a simple
   Amen, sometimes Kyrie eleison, sometimes a sort of dialogue with the
   priest:

   Priest: The Lord be with you!

   People: And with thy spirit!

   Priest: Lift--up your hearts!

   People: We lift them up unto the Lord.

   Priest: Let us give thanks!

   People: It is meet and right.

   Some parts of the liturgy, as the Creed, the Seraphic Hymn, the Lord's
   Prayer, were said or sung by the priest and congregation together.
   Originally the whole congregation of the faithful [1072] was intended
   to respond; but with the advance of the hierarchical principle the
   democratic and popular element fell away, and the deacons or the choir
   assumed the responses of the congregation, especially where the
   liturgical language was not intelligible to the people. [1073]

   Several of the oldest liturgies, like those of St. Clement and St.
   James, have long since gone out of use, and have only a historical
   interest. Others, like those of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, and the
   Roman, are still used, with various changes and additions made at
   various times, in the Greek and Latin churches. Many of their most
   valuable parts have passed, through the medium of the Latin mass-books,
   into the liturgies and agenda of the Anglican, the Lutheran, and some
   of the Reformed churches.

   But in general they breathe an entirely different atmosphere from the
   Protestant liturgies, even the Anglican not excepted. For in them all
   the eucharistic sacrifice is the centre around which all the prayers
   and services revolve. This act of sacrifice for the quick and the dead
   is a complete service, the sermon being entirely unessential, and in
   fact usually dispensed with. In Protestantism, on the contrary, the
   Lord's Supper is almost exclusively Communion, and the sermon is the
   chief matter in every ordinary service.

   Between the Oriental and Occidental liturgies there are the following
   characteristic differences:

   1. The Eastern retain the ante-Nicene division of public worship into
   two parts: the leitourgia katechoumenon, Missa Catechumenorum, which is
   mainly didactic, and the leitourgia ton piston, Missa Fidelium, which
   contains the celebration of the Eucharist proper. This division lost
   its primitive import upon the union of church and state, and the
   universal introduction of infant baptism. The Latin liturgies connect
   the two parts in one whole.

   2. The Eastern liturgies contain, after the Words of Institution, an
   express Invocation of the Holy Ghost, without which the sanctification
   of the elements is not fully effected. Traces of this appear in the
   Gallican liturgies. But in the Roman liturgy this invocation is
   entirely wanting, and the sanctification of the elements is considered
   as effected by the priest's rehearsal of the Words of Institution. This
   has remained a point of dispute between the Greek and the Roman
   churches. Gregory the Great asserts that the apostles used nothing in
   the consecration but the Words of Institution and the Lord's Prayer.
   [1074] But whence could he know this in the sixth century, since the
   New Testament gives us no information on the subject? An invocatio
   Spiritus Sancti upon the elements is nowhere mentioned; only a
   thanksgiving of the Lord, preceding the Words of Institution, and
   forming also, it may be, an act of consecration, though neither in the
   sense of the Greek nor of the Roman church. The Words of Institution:
   "This is my body," &c., are more-over addressed not to God, but to the
   disciples, and express, so to speak, the result of the Lord's
   benediction. [1075] 3. The Oriental liturgy allowed, more like the
   Protestant church, the use of the various vernaculars, Greek, Syriac,
   Armenian, Coptic, &c.; while the Roman mass, in its desire for
   uniformity, sacrifices all vernacular tongues to the Latin, and so
   makes itself unintelligible to the people.

   4. The Oriental liturgy is, so to speak, a symbolic drama of the
   history of redemption, repeated with little alteration every Sunday.
   The preceding vespers represent the creation, the fall, and the earnest
   expectation of Christ; the principal service on Sunday morning exhibits
   the life of Christ from his birth to his ascension; and the prayers and
   lessons are accompanied by corresponding symbolical acts of the priests
   and deacon: lighting and extinguishing candles, opening and closing
   doors, kissing the altar and the gospel, crossing the forehead, mouth,
   and breast, swinging the censer, frequent change of liturgical
   vestments, processions, genuflexions, and prostrations. The whole
   orthodox Greek and Russian worship has a strongly marked Oriental
   character, and exceeds the Roman in splendor and pomp of symbolical
   ceremonial. [1076]

   The Roman mass is also a dramatic commemoration and representation of
   the history of redemption, especially of the passion and atoning death
   of Christ, but has a more didactic character, and sets forth not so
   much the objective history, as the subjective application of redemption
   from the Confiteor to the Postcommunio. It affords less room for
   symbolical action, but more for word and song, and follows more closely
   the course of the church year with varying collects and prefaces for
   the high festivals, [1077] thus gaining variety. In this it stands the
   nearer to the Protestant worship, which, however, entirely casts off
   symbolical veils, and makes the sermon the centre.

   Every Oriental liturgy has two main divisions. The first embraces the
   prayers and acts before the Anaphora or Oblation (canon Missae) to the
   Sursum corda; the second, the Anaphora to the close.

   The first division again falls into the Mass of the Catechumens, and
   the Mass of the Faithful, to the Sursum corda. To it belong the
   Prefatory Prayer, the Introit, Ingressa, or Antiphon, the Little
   Entrance, the Trisagion, the Scripture Lessons, the Prayers after the
   Gospel, and the Expulsion of the Catechumens; then the Prayers of the
   Faithful, the Great Entrance, the Offertory, the Kiss of Peace, the
   Creed.

   The Anaphora comprises the great Eucharistic Prayer of Thanksgiving,
   the Commemoration of the life of Jesus, the Words of Institution, the
   Oblation of the Elements, the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, the Great
   Intercession for Quick and Dead, the Lord's Prayer, and finally the
   Communion with its proper prayers and acts, the Thanksgiving, and the
   Dismissal. [1078]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1068] Leitourgia, from leitos, i.e., belonging to the leos or
   laospublic, and ergon = ergon tou leo or tou laou, public work, office,
   function. In Athens the term was applied especially to the directing of
   public spectacles, festive dances, and the distribution of food to the
   people on festal occasions. Paul, in Rom. xiii. 6, calls secular
   magistrates leitourgoi Theou.

   [1069] Comp. Luke i. 23, where the priestly service of Zacharias is
   called leitourgia; Heb. viii. 2, 6; ix. 21; x. 11, where the word is
   applied to the High-Priesthood of Christ; Acts xiii. 2; Rom. xv. 16;
   Rom. xv. 27; 2 Cor. ix. 12, where religious fasting, missionary
   service, and common beneficences are called leitourgiaor leitourgein. .
   The restriction of the word to divine worship or sacerdotal action
   occurs as early as Eusebius, Vita Const. iv. 37, bishops being there
   called leitourgoi. The limitation of the word to the service of the
   Lord's Supper is connected with the development of the doctrine of the
   eucharistic sacrifice.

   [1070] Comp. Tertullian, Apolog. c. 7; Origen, Homil. 9 in Levit.
   toward the end; Cyril of Jerusalem, Praefat. ad Catech. § 7, etc.

   [1071] Trollope says, in the Introduction to his edition of the
   Liturgia Jacobi: "Nothing short of the reverence due to the authority
   of an apostle, could have preserved intact, through successive ages,
   that strict uniformity of rite and striking identity of sentiment,
   which pervade these venerable compositions; but there is, at the same
   time, a sufficient diversity both of expression and arrangement, to
   mark them as the productions of different authors, each writing without
   any immediate communication with the others, but all influenced by the
   same prevailing motives of action and the same constant habit of
   thought." Neale goes further, and, in a special article on Liturgical
   Quotations (Essays on Liturgiology and Church History, Lond. 1863, p.
   411 ff.), endeavors to prove that Paul several times quotes the
   primitive liturgy, viz., in those passages in which he introduces
   certain statements with a gegraptai, or legei, or pistos ho logos,
   while the statements are not to be found in the Old Testament: 1 Cor.
   ii. 9; xv. 45; Eph. v. 14; 1 Tim. i. 15; iii. 1; iv. 1, 9; 2 Tim. ii.
   11-13, 19; Tit. iii. 8. But the only plausible instance is 1 Cor. ii.
   9: Kathos gegraptai; ha ophthalmos ouk heide, kai ous ouk ekouse, kai
   epi kardian anthropou ouk anebe, ha hetoimasen ho Theos tois agaposin
   auton, which, it is true, occur word for word (though in the form of
   prayer, therefore with hetoimasas, and agaposi se instead of agaposin
   auton) the Anaphora of the Liturgia Jacobi, while the parallel commonly
   cited from Is. lxiv. 4 is hardly suitable. But if there had been such a
   primitive written apostolic liturgy, there would have undoubtedly been
   other and clearer traces of it. The passages adduced may as well have
   been quotations from primitive Christian hymns and psalms, though such
   are very nearly akin to liturgical prayers.

   [1072] In the Clementine Liturgy, all, pantes; in the Liturgy of St.
   James, the People, ho laos.

   [1073] In the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, which have
   displaced the older Greek liturgies, the diakonosor chorosusually
   responds. In the Roman mass the people fall still further out of view,
   but accompany the priest with silent prayers.

   [1074] Epist. ad Joann. Episc. Syriac.

   [1075] On this disputed point Neale agrees with the Oriental church,
   Freeman with the Latin. Comp. Neale, Tetralogia Liturgica, Praefat. p.
   xv. sqq., and his English edition of the Primitive Liturgies of S.
   Mark, S. James, etc., p. 23. In the latter place he says of the
   epiklesis Pneumatos hagiou: "By the Invocation of the Holy Ghost,
   according to the doctrine of the Eastern church, and not by the words
   of institution, the bread and wine are 'changed,' 'transmuted,'
   'transelemented,' 'transubstantiated' into our Lord's Body and Blood.
   This has always been a point of contention between the two
   churches--the time at which the change takes place. Originally, there
   is no doubt that the Invocation of the Holy Ghostformed a part of all
   liturgies. The Petrine has entirely lost it: the Ephesine (Gallican and
   Mozarabic) more or less retains it: as do also those mixtures of the
   Ephesine and Petrine--the Ambrosian and Patriarchine or Aquileian. To
   use the words of the authorized Russian Catechism: 'Why is this (the
   Invocation) so essential? Because at the moment of this act, the bread
   and wine are changed or transubstantiated into the very Body of
   Christand into the very Blood of Christ. How are we to understand the
   word Transubstantiation? In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern
   Patriarchs, it is said that the word is not to be taken to define the
   manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood
   of our Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only this much
   is signified, that the bread, truly, really, and substantially becomes
   the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the
   Lord.' " Freeman, on the contrary in his Principles of Div. Serv. vol.
   ii. Part ii. p. 196 f, asserts: "The Eastern church cannot maintain the
   position which, as represented by her doctors of the last four hundred
   years, and alleging the authority of St. Cyril, she has taken up, that
   there is no consecration till there has followed (1) a prayer of
   oblation and (2) one of Invocation of the Holy Ghost. In truth, the
   view refutes itself, for it disqualifies the oblation for the very
   purpose for which it is avowedly placed there, namely to make offering
   of the already consecrated Gifts, i.e., of the Body and Blood of
   Christ; thus reducing it to a level with the oblation at the beginning
   of the office. The only view that can be taken of these very ancient
   prayers, is that they are to be conceived of as offered simultaneously
   with the recitation of the Institution."

   [1076] On the mystical meaning of the Oriental cultus comp. the
   Commentary of Symeon of Thessalonica ( 1429) on the Liturgy of St.
   Chrysostom, and Neale's Introduction to his English edition of the
   Oriental Liturgies, pp. xxvii.-xxxvi.

   [1077] The Collectsbelong strictly only to the Latin church, which has
   produced many hundred such short prayers. The word comes either from
   the fact that the prayer collects the sense of the Epistle and Gospel
   for the day in the form of prayer; or that the priest collects therein
   the wishes and petitions of the people. The collect is a short
   liturgical prayer, consisting of one petition, closing with the form of
   mediation through the merits of Christ, and sometimes with a doxology
   to the Trinity. Comp. a treatise of Neale on The Collects of the
   Church, in Essays on Liturgiology and Church History, p. 46 ff, and
   William Bright: Ancient Collects and Prayers, selected from various
   rituals, Oxford and London, 1860.

   [1078] It is a curious fact, that in the Protestant Episcopal Trinity
   chapel of New York, with the full approval of the bishop, Horatio
   Potter, and the assistance of the choir, on the second of March, 1865,
   the anniversary of the accession of the Russian Czar, Alexander II.,
   the full liturgy or mass of the orthodox Graeco-Russian church was
   celebrated before a numerous assembly by a recently arrived
   Graeco-Russian monk and priest (or deacon), Agapius Honcharenko. This
   is the first instance of an Oriental service in the United States (for
   the Russian fleet which was in the harbor of New York in 1863 held its
   worship exclusively upon the ships), and probably also the first
   instance of the celebration of the unbloody sacrifice of the mass and
   the mystery of transubstantiation in a Protestant church and with the
   sanction of Protestant clergy. The liturgy of St. Chrysostom, in the
   Slavonic translation, was intoned by the priest; the short responses,
   such as Hospode, Pomelue (Kyrie, Eleison), were grandly sung by the
   choir in the Slavonic language, and the Beatitudes, the Nicene Creed
   (of course, without the "Filioque," which is condemned by the Greek
   church as a heretical innovation), and the Gloria in Excelsis in
   English There were wanting only the many genuflexions and prostrations,
   the trine immersion, and infant communion, to complete the illusion of
   a marriage of the two churches. Some secular journals gave the matter
   the significance of a political demonstration in favor of Russia! One
   of the religious papers saw in it an exhibition of the unity and
   catholicity of the church, and a resemblance to the miracle of
   Pentecost, in that Greeks, Slavonians, and Americans heard in their own
   tongues the wonderful works of God! But most of the Episcopal and other
   Protestant papers exposed the doctrinal inconsistency, since the Greek
   liturgy coincides in au important points with the Roman mass.
   Unfortunately for the philo-Russian movement, the Russo-Greek monk
   Agapius soon afterward publicly declared himself an opponent of the
   holy orthodox oriental church, an d charged it with serious error. The
   present Greek church, which regards even the archbishop of Canterbury
   and, the pope of Rome as unbaptized (because unimmersed) heretics and
   schismatics, could, of course, never consent to such an anomalous
   service as was held in Trinity chapel for the first, and in all
   probability for the last time.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 99. The Oriental Liturgies.

   There are, in all, probably more than a hundred ancient liturgies, if
   we reckon revisals, modifications, and translations. But according to
   modern investigations they may all be reduced to five or six families,
   which may be named after the churches in which they originated and were
   used, Jerusalem (or Antioch), Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, and
   Rome. [1079] Most of them belong to the Orientalchurch; for this church
   was in general much more productive, and favored greater variety, than
   the Western, which sought uniformity in organization and worship. And
   among the Oriental liturgies the Greek are the oldest and most
   important.

   1. The liturgy of St. Clement. This is found in the eighth book of the
   Apostolic Constitutions, and, with them, is erroneously ascribed to the
   Roman bishop Clement. [1080] It is the oldest complete order of divine
   service, and was probably composed in the East in the beginning of the
   fourth century. [1081] It agrees most with the liturgy of St. James and
   of Cyril of Jerusalem, and may for this reason be considered a branch
   of the Jerusalem family. We know not in what churches, or whether at
   all, it was used. It was a sort of normal liturgy, and is chiefly
   valuable for showing the difference between the Nicene or ante-Nicene
   form of worship and the later additions and alterations.

   The Clementine liturgy rigidly separates the service of the catechumens
   from that of the faithful. [1082] It contains the simplest form for the
   distribution of the sacred elements: "The body of Christ," and "The
   blood of Christ, the cup of life," with the "Amen" of the congregation
   to each. In the commemoration of the departed it mentions no particular
   names of saints, not even the mother of God, who first found a place in
   public worship after the council of Ephesus in 431; and it omits
   several prefatory prayers of the priest. Finally it lacks the Nicene
   creed, and even the Lord's Prayer, which is added to all other
   eucharistic prayers, and, according to the principles of some
   canonists, is absolutely necessary. [1083]

   2. The liturgy of St. James. This is ascribed by tradition to James,
   the brother to the Lord, and bishop of Jerusalem. [1084] It, of course,
   cannot have been composed by him, even considering only the Nicene
   creed and the expressions homoousiosand theotokos, which occur in it,
   and which belong to the Nicene and post-Nicene theology. The following
   passage also bespeaks a much later origin: "Let us remember the most
   holy, immaculate, most glorious, blessed Mother of God and perpetual
   Virgin Mary, with all saints, that we through their prayers and
   intercessions may obtain mercy." The first express mention of its use
   meets us in Proclus of Constantinople about the middle of the fifth
   century. But it is, as to substance, at all events one of the oldest
   liturgies, and must have been in use as early as the fourth century;
   for the liturgical quotations in Cyril of Jerusalem (in his fifth
   Mystagogic Catechesis), who died in 386, verbally agree with it. It was
   intended for the church of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in the
   beginning of the prayer for the church universal, as "the glorious
   Zion, the mother of all churches." [1085]

   In contents and diction it is the most important of the ancient
   liturgies, and the fruitful mother of many, among which the liturgies
   of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom must be separately named. [1086] It
   spread over the whole patriarchate of Antioch, even to Cyprus, Sicily,
   and Calabria, but was supplanted in the orthodox East, after the
   Mohammedan conquest, by the Byzantine liturgy. Only once in a year, on
   the 23d of October, the festival of St. James, it is yet used at
   Jerusalem and on some islands of Greece. [1087]

   The Syriac liturgy of James is a free translation from the Greek; it
   gives the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in a larger form, the other
   prayers in a shorter; and it betrays a later date. It is the source of
   thirty-nine Monophysite liturgies, which are in use still among the
   schismatic Syrians or Jacobites. [1088]

   3. The liturgy of St. Mark, or the Alexandrian liturgy. This is
   ascribed to the well-known Evangelist, who was also, according to
   tradition, the founder of the church and catechetical school in the
   Egyptian capital. Such origin involves, of course, a shocking
   anachronism, since the liturgy contains the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan
   creed of 381. In its present form it comes probably from Cyril, bishop
   of Alexandria ( 444), who was claimed by the orthodox, as well as the
   Monophysites, as an advocate of their doctrine of the person of Christ.
   [1089] It agrees, at any rate, exactly with the liturgy which bears
   Cyril's name.

   It is distinguished from the other liturgies by the position of the
   great intercessory prayer for quick and dead before the Words of
   Institution and Invocation of the Holy Ghost, instead of after them. It
   was originally composed in Greek, and afterwards translated into Coptic
   and Arabic. It was used in Egypt till the twelfth century, and then
   supplanted by the Byzantine. The Copts still retained it. The Ethiopian
   canon is an offshoot from it. There are three Coptic and ten Ethiopian
   liturgies, which belong to the same family. [1090]

   4. The liturgy of Edessa or Mesopotamia, or of All Apostles. This is
   traced to the apostles Thaddaeus (Adaeus) and Maris, and is confined to
   the Nestorians. From it afterwards proceeded the Nestorian liturgies:
   (1) of Theodore the Interpreter; (2) of Nestorius; (3) Narses the
   Leper; (4) of Barsumas; (5) of Malabar, or St. Thomas. The liturgy of
   the Thomas-Christians of Malabar has been much adulterated by the
   revisers of Diamper. [1091]

   5. The liturgy of St. Basil and that of St. Chrysostom form together
   the Byzantine or ConstantinopolItan liturgy, and passed at the same
   time into the Graeco-Russian church. Both descend from the liturgy of
   St. James and give that ritual in an abridged form. They are living
   books, not dead like the liturgies of Clement and of James.

   The liturgy of bishop Basil of Neo-Caesarea ( 379) is read in the
   orthodox Greek, and Russian church, during Lent (except on Palm
   Sunday), on the eve of Epiphany, Easter and Christmas, and on the feast
   of St. Basil (1st of January). From it proceeded the Armenian liturgy.

   The liturgy of St. Chrysostom ( 407) is used on all other Sundays. It
   is an abridgment and improvement of that of St. Basil, and, through the
   influence of the distinguished patriarchs of Constantinople, it has
   since the sixth century dislodged the liturgies of St. James and St.
   Mark. The original text can hardly be ascertained, as the extant copies
   differ greatly from one another.

   The present Greek and Russian ritual, which surpasses even the Roman in
   pomp, cannot possibly have come down in all its details from the age of
   Chrysostom. Chrysostom is indeed supposed, as Proclus says, to have
   shortened in many respects the worship in Constantinople on account of
   the weakness of human nature; but the liturgy which bears his name is
   still in the seventh century called "the Liturgy of the Holy Apostles,"
   and appears to have received his name not before the eighth.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1079] Neale now (The Liturgies of S. Mark, etc., 1859, p. vii) divides
   the primitive liturgies into five families: (1) That of St. James, or
   of Jerusalem; (2) that of St. Mark, or of Alexandria.; (3) that of St.
   Thaddaeus, or of the East; (4) that of St. Peter, or of Rome; (5) that
   of St. John, or of Ephesus. Formerly (Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church)
   he counted the Clementine Liturgy separately; but since Daniel has
   demonstrated the affinity of it with the Jerusalem (or, as he calls it,
   the Antiochian) family, he has put it down as a branch of that family.

   [1080] It is given in Cotelier's edition of the Patres Apostolici, in
   the various editions of the pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, and in the
   liturgical collections of Daniel, Neale, and others.

   [1081] Neale considers the liturgy the oldest part of the Apostolic
   Constitutions, places its composition in the second or third century,
   and ascribes its chief elements to the apostle Paul, with whose spirit
   and ideas it in many respects coincides.

   [1082] Before the Sursum corda, or beginning of the Eucharist proper,
   the deacon says: "No catechumens, no hearers, no unbelievers, no
   heretics may remain here (me tis ton katechoumenon, me tis ton
   akroomenon, me tis ton apiston, me tis ton heterodoxon). Depart, ye who
   have spoken the former prayer. Mothers, take your children," etc. This
   arrangement is traced to James, the brother of John, the son of
   Zebedee.

   [1083] . The absence of the Lord's Prayer in the Clementine Liturgy is
   sufficient to refute the view of Bunsen, that this prayer was
   originally the Prayer of Consecration in all liturgies.

   [1084] Neale even supposes, as already observed, that St. Paul quotes
   from the Liturgia Jacobi, and not vice versa, especially in I Cor. ii.
   9

   [1085] Huper tes endoxou Sion, tes metros pason ton ekklesion; kai
   huper tes kata pasan ten oikoumenen hagias sou katholikes kai
   apostolikes ekklesias .The intercessions for Jerusalem, and for the
   holy places which God glorified by the appearance of Christ and the
   outpouring of the Holy Ghost (huper ton hagion sou topon, ohus edoxasas
   te theophaneia tou Christou sou, k.t.l.), appears in no other liturgy.

   [1086] Neale arranges the Jerusalem family in three divisions, as
   follows: "1. Sicilian S. James, as said in that island before the
   Saracen conquest, and partly assimilated to the Petrine Liturgy. 2. S.
   Cyril: where used uncertain, but assumilated to the Alexandrian form.
   3. Syriac S. James, the source of the largest number of extant
   Liturgies. They are these: [1] Lesser S. James [2] S. Clement; [3] S.
   Mark; [4] S. Dionysius; [5] S. Xystus; [6] S. Ignatius; [7] S. Peter I;
   [8] S. Peter II; [9] S. Julius; [10] S. John Evangelist; [11] S. Basil;
   [12] (S.) Dioscorus; [13] S. John ChrysostomI; [14] All Apostles; [15]
   S. Marutas; [16] S. Eustathius; [17] Philoxenus I; [18] Matthew the
   Shepherd; [19] James Bardaeus; [20]. James of Botra; [21] James of
   Edessa; [22] Moses Bar-Cephas; [23] Thomas of Heraclea; [24] Holy
   Doctors; [25] Philoxenus II; [26] S. John ChrysostomII; [27]
   Abu'lfaraj; [28] John of Dara; [291 S. Celestine; [30] John Bar-Susan;
   [31] Eleatar of Babylon; [32] John the Scribe; [33] John Maro; [34]
   Dionysius of Cardon; [35] Michael of Antioch; [36] John Bar-Vahib; [37]
   John Bar-Maaden; [38] Dionysius of Diarbekr; [39] Philoxenus of Bagdad.
   All these, from Syriac S. James inclusive, are Monophysite Liturgies

   [1087] There are only two manuscripts, with the fragment of a third,
   from which the ancient text of the Greek Liturgia Jacobi is derived.
   The first printed edition appeared at Rome in 1526; then one at Paris
   in 1560. Besides these we have the copies in the Bibliotheca Patrum,
   the Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, the Codex Liturgicus of Assemani,
   the Codex Liturgicus of Daniel, and the later separate editions of
   Trollope (Edinburgh, 1848), and Neale (twice, in his Tetralogia
   Liturgica, 1849, and improved, in his Primitive Liturgies, 1860).

   [1088] See the names of them in the preceding quotation from Neale.

   [1089] Daniel (iv. 137 sqq.) likewise considers Cyril the probable
   author, and endeavors to separate the apostolical and the later
   elements. Neale, in the preface to his edition of the Greek text,
   thinks: "The general form and arrangement of the Liturgy of S. Mark may
   safely be attributed to the Evangelist himself, and to his immediate
   followers, S. Amianus, S. Abilius, and S. Cerdo. With the exception of
   certain manifestly interpolated passages, it had probably assumed its
   present appearance by the end of the second century."

   [1090] There is only one important manuscript of the Greek Liturgy of
   St. Mark, the Codex Rossanensis, printed in Renaudot's Collectio, and
   more recently by Daniel and Neale.

   [1091] The printed edition is a revision by the Portuguese archbishop
   of Goa, Alexis of Menuze, and the council of Diamper (1599), who
   understood nothing of the Oriental liturgies. Neale says: "The Malabar
   Liturgy I have never been able to see in the original; and an
   unadulterated copy of the original does not seem to exist." He gives a
   translation of this liturgy in Primitive Liturgies, p. 128 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 100. The Occidental Liturgies.

   The liturgies of the Western church may be divided into three classes:
   (1) the Ephesian family, which is traced to a Johannean origin, and
   embraces the Mozarabic and the Gallican liturgies; (2) the Roman
   liturgy, which, of course, like the papacy itself, must come down from
   St. Peter; (3) the Ambrosian and Aquileian, which is a mixture of the
   other two. We have therefore here less diversity than in the East. The
   tendency of the Latin church everywhere pressed strongly toward
   uniformity, and the Roman liturgy at last excluded all others.

   1. The Old Gallican liturgy, [1092] in many of its features, points
   back, like the beginnings of Christianity in South Gaul, to an Asiatic,
   Ephesian, and so far we may say Johannean origin, and took its later
   form in the fifth century. Among its composers, or rather the revisers,
   Hilary, of Poictiers is particularly named. In the time of Charlemagne
   it was superseded by the Roman. Gallicanism, which in church
   organization and polity boldly asserted its rights, suffered itself
   easily to be Romanized in its worship.

   The Old British liturgy was without doubt identical with the Gallican,
   but after the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons it was likewise supplanted
   by the Roman.

   2. The Old Spanish or (though incorrectly so called) Gothic, also named
   Mozarabic liturgy. [1093] This is in many respects allied to the
   Gallic, and probably came through the latter from a similar Eastern
   Source. It appears to have existed before the incursion of the West
   Goths in 409; for it shows no trace of the influence of the Arian
   heresy, or of the ritual system of Constantinople. [1094] Its present
   form is attributed to Isidore of Seville and the fourth council of
   Toledo in 633. It maintained itself in Spain down to the thirteenth
   century and was then superseded by the Roman liturgy. [1095]

   It has, like the Gallican, besides the Gospels and Epistles, lessons
   also from the Old Testament; [1096] it differs from the Roman liturgy
   in the order of festivals; and it contains, before the proper
   sacrificial action, a homiletic exhortation. The formula Sancta
   Sanctis, before the communion) the fraction of the host into nine parts
   (in memory of the nine mysteries of the life of Christ), the daily
   communion, the distribution of the cup by the deacon, remind us of the
   oriental ritual. The Mozarabic chant has much resemblance to the
   Gregorian, but exhibits besides a certain independent national
   character. [1097]

   3. The African liturgy is known to us only through fragmentary
   quotations in Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, from which we gather
   that it belonged to the Roman family.

   4. The liturgy Of St. Ambrose. [1098] This is attributed to the
   renowned bishop of Milan ( 397), and even to St. Barnabas. It is
   certain, that Ambrose introduced the responsive singing of psalms and
   hymns, and composed several prayers, prefaces, and hymns. His
   successor, Simplicius (a.d. 397-400), is supposed to have made several
   additions to the ritual. Many elements date from the reign of the
   Gothic kings (a.d. 493-568), and the Lombard kings (a.d. 568-739).

   The Ambrosian liturgy is still used in the diocese of Milan; and after
   sundry vain attempts to substitute the Roman, it was confirmed by
   Alexander VI. in 1497 by a special bull, as the Ritus Ambrosianus.
   Excepting some Oriental peculiarities, it coincides substantially with
   the Roman liturgy, but has neither the pregnant brevity of the Roman,
   nor the richness and fullness of the Mozarabic. The prayers for the
   oblation of the sacrificial gifts differ from the Roman; the Apostles'
   Creed is not recited till after the oblation; some saints of the
   diocese are received into the canonical lists of the saints; the
   distribution of the host takes place before the Paternoster, with
   formulas of its own, &c.

   The liturgy which was used for a long time in the patriarchate of
   Aquileia, is allied to the Ambrosian, and likewise stands midway
   between the Roman and the Oriental Gallican liturgies.

   5. The Roman liturgy is ascribed by tradition, in its main features, to
   the Apostle Peter, but cannot be historically traced beyond the middle
   of the fifth century. It has without doubt slowly grown to its present
   form. The oldest written records of it appear in three sacramentaries,
   which bear the names of the three Popes, Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory.

   (a) The Sacramentarium Leonianum, falsely ascribed to Pope Leo I. (
   461), probably dates from the end of the fifth century, and is a
   planless collection of liturgical formularies. It was first edited in
   1735 from a codex of Verona. [1099]

   (b) The Sacramentarium Gelasianum, which was first printed at Rome in
   1680, passes for the work of the Roman bishop Gelasius ( 492-496), who
   certainly did compose a Sacramentarium. Many saints' days are wanting
   in it, which have been in use since the seventh century.

   (c) The Sacramentarium Gregorianum, edited by Muratori and others.
   Gregory I. (590-604) is reputed to be the proper father of the Roman
   Ordo et Canon Missae, which, with various additions and modifications
   at later periods, gradually attained almost exclusive prevalence in the
   Latin church, and was sanctioned by the Council of Trent.

   The collection of the various parts of the Roman liturgy [1100] in one
   book is called Missale Romanum, and the directions for the priests are
   called Rubricae. [1101]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1092] Edited by Mabillon: De liturgia Gallicana, libri iii. Par. 1729;
   and recently in much more complete form, from older MSS. by Francis
   Joseph Mone (archive-director in Carlsruhe): Lateinische u. griechische
   Messen aus dem 2ten his 6ten Jahrlhundert, Frankf. a. M. 1850. This is
   one of the most important liturgical discoveries. Mono gives fragments
   of eleven mass-formularies from a codex rescriptus of the former
   cloister of Reichenau, which are older than those previously known, but
   hardly reach back, as he thinks, to the century (the time of the
   persecution at Lyons, a.d.177). Comp. against this, Denzinger, in the
   Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1850, p. 500 ff. Neale agrees with Mone:
   Essays on Liturgiology, p. 137.

   [1093] Called "Gothic," because its development and bloom falls in the
   time of the Gothic rule in Spain; "Mozarabic" it came to be called
   after the conquest of Spain by the Arabs. Mozarab, Muzarab, Mostarab,
   is a kind of term of contempt for the Spanish Christians under the
   Arabic dominion, in distinction from the Arabs of pure blood. The word
   comes not from mixti and Arabes, nor from Muza, the Maurian chieftain
   who subjugated Spain, but from a participle of the tenth conjugation of
   the Arabic verb araba; therefore something like "arabizing Arab," or
   Arab by adoption, in distinction from Arabs of the pure blood. Comp.
   the distinction between Hellenist and Hebrew.

   [1094] Pinius (in a dissertation prefixed to the 32d vol. of the Acta
   Sanctorum) supposes that the Spanish liturgy came from the Goths,
   therefore from Constantinople; but Neale (Essays on Liturgiology, p.
   130 ff.) endeavors to prove that it was contemporaneous with the
   introduction of Christianity in Spain, but afterward, by Leander of
   Seville (about 589), was conformed in some points to the Oriental
   ceremonial.

   [1095] The Spanish cardinal Ximenes edited from defective manuscripts
   the first printed edition at Toledo, 1500, which, however, is in a
   measure conformed to the Roman order. He also founded in the cathedral
   of Toledo a chapel (ad Corpus Christi), where the so renovated
   Mozarabic service is still continued daily. A similar chapel was
   founded in Salamanca for the same purpose. Neale, in his Tetralogia
   Liturgica, gives the Ordo Mozarabicus for comparison with the Liturgies
   of Chrysostom, James, and Mark. The latest edition is that in the 85th
   volume of Migne's Patrologie, Paris, 1850, with a learned preface.

   [1096] On the Mozarabic pericopes comp. an article by Ernst Ranke in
   Herzog's Encykop. vol. x. pp. 79-82. He attributes to them great
   intrinsic value and historical importance. "They even seem important,"
   says he,"for the general history of the ancient church. With the
   unmistakable affinity they bear to the Greek on the one hand, and to
   the Gallican on the other, they evince by themselves an intercourse
   between the Eastern and Western regions of the church, which, begun or
   at least aimed at by Paul, further established by Irenaeus, still under
   lively prosecution in the time of Jerome, afterward ruptured in the
   most violent manner, is without doubt one of the most noteworthy
   currents in the life of the church."

   [1097] Neale has made the discovery, that the Mozarabic litanies were
   originally metrical, and attempts to restore the measure, l c. p. 143
   ff.

   [1098] Missale Ambrosianum, Mediol. 1768; a later edition under
   authority of the archbishop and cardinal Gaisruck, Mediol. 1850. Comp.
   an article by Neale: The Ambrosian Liturgy, in his Essays on
   Liturgiology, p. 171 ff. Neale considers the Ambrosian liturgy, like
   the Gallican and Mozarabic, a branch of the Ephesian family. "All three
   have been moulded by contact with the Petrine family; but the
   Ambrosian, as it might be expected, most of all." He places it,
   however, far below the two others.

   [1099] Hence called also Sacram. Veronense.

   [1100] Sacramentarium, antiphonarium, lectionarium (containing the
   lessons from the Old Testament, the Acts, the Epistles, and the
   Apocalypse), evangelarium (the lessons from the Gospels), ordo Romanus.

   [1101] From their being written or printed in red.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 101. Liturgical Vestments.

   Besides the liturgical works already cited, Comp. John England (late
   R.C. bishop of Charleston, S. C., d. 1842): An Historical Explanation
   of the Vestments, Ceremonies, etc., appertaining to the holy Sacrifice
   of the Mass (an Introduction to the American Engl. edition of the Roman
   Missal). Philad. 1843. Fr. Bock. (R.C.): Geschichte der liturgischen
   Gewänder des Mittelalters. Bonn, 1856, 2 vols. C. Jos. Hefele: Beiträge
   zur Kirchengeschichte, Archäologie und Liturgik. Vol ii. Tüb. 1864, p.
   150 ff.

   The stately outward solemnity of public worship, and the strict
   separation of the hierarchy from the body of the laity, required
   corresponding liturgical vesture, after the example of the Jewish
   priesthood and cultus, [1102] symbolical of the grades of the clergy
   and of the different parts of the worship.

   In the Greek church the liturgical vestments and ornaments are the
   sticharion, [1103] and the orarion, or horarion [1104] for the deacon;
   the sticharion, the phelonion, [1105] the zone, [1106] the
   epitrachelion, [1107] and the epimanikia [1108] for the priest; the
   saccos, [1109] the omophorion [1110] the epigonation, [1111] and the
   crozier [1112] for the bishop. The mitre is not used by the Greeks.

   The vestments in the Latin church are the amict or humeral [1113] the
   alb (white cope or surplice), [1114] the cincture, [1115] the maniple,
   [1116] the orarium or stole [1117] for the priest; the chasuble, [1118]
   the dalmatic, [1119] the pectoral [1120] and the mitre [1121] for the
   bishop; the pallium for the archbishop. To these are to be added the
   episcopal ring and staff or crozier.

   These clerical vestments almost all appear to have been more or less in
   use before the seventh century, though only in public worship; it is
   impossible exactly to determine the age of each. The use of priestly
   vestments itself originated in fact in the Old Testament, and
   undoubtedly passed into the church through the medium of the Jewish
   Christianity, but of course with many modifications. Constantine the
   Great presented the bishop Macarius of Jerusalem a splendid stole
   wrought with gold for use at baptism.

   The Catholic ritualists of course give to the various mass-vestments a
   symbolical interpretation, which is in part derived from the undeniable
   meaning of the Jewish priestly garments, [1122] but in part is
   arbitrary, and hence variable. The amict, for example, denotes the
   collecting of the mind from distraction; the alb, the righteousness and
   holiness of the priests; the maniple, the fruits of good works; the
   stole, the official power of the priest; the mitre, the clerical
   chieftainship; the ring, the marriage of the bishop with the church;
   the staff his oversight of the flock.

   The color of the liturgical garments was for several centuries white;
   as in the Jewish sacerdotal vesture the white color, the symbol of
   light and salvation, prevailed. But gradually five ecclesiastical
   colors established themselves. The material varied, except that for the
   amict and the alb linen (as in the Old Testament) was prescribed.
   According to the present Roman custom the sacred vestments, like other
   sacred utensils and the holy water, must be blessed by the bishop or a
   clergyman even appointed for the purpose. The Greeks bless them even
   before each use of them. The Roman Missal, and other liturgical books,
   give particular directions in the rubrics for the use of the mass
   vestments.

   In everyday life, for the first five or six centuries the clergy
   universally wore the ordinary citizens' dress; then gradually, after
   the precedent of the Jewish priests [1123] and Christian monks,
   exchanged it for a suitable official costume, to make manifest their
   elevation above the laity. So late as the year 428, the Roman bishop
   Celestine censured some Gallic priests for having, through
   misinterpretation of Luke xii. 35, exchanged the universally used
   under-garment (tunica) and over-garment (toga) for the Oriental
   monastic dress, and rightly reminded them that the clergy should
   distinguish themselves from other people not so much by outward
   costume, as by purity of doctrine and of life. [1124] Later popes and
   councils, however, enacted various laws and penalties respecting these
   externals, and the council of Trent prescribed an official dress
   befitting the dignity of the priesthood. [1125]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1102] To which in general the Greek and Roman system of vestments is
   very closely allied. On the Jewish sacred vestments, see Ex. xxviii.
   1-53; xxxix. 1-31, etc.

   [1103] Stoicharion, sticharion(by Goar always translated, dalmatica), a
   long coat corresponding to the broidered coat (tntk, chiton,tunica, Ex.
   xxviii. 39) of the Jewish priest, and the alba and dalmatica of the
   Latin church.

   [1104] Horarion(from hora, hour of prayer), or orarion, corresponding
   to the Latin stola.

   [1105] Phelonion, phailonion, a wide mantle, corresponding to the
   casula.

   [1106] Zone, girdle, cingulum, balteus, corresponding to the 'vtst

   [1107] Epitrachelion, collarium, a double orarion, a scapulary or cape.

   [1108] Epimanikia,on the arms, corresponding to the manipulus.

   [1109] Sakkos,a short coat with rich embroidery, without sleeves, and
   with little bells.

   [1110] Omophorion corresponding to the Latin pallium (and so translated
   by Goar) but broader, and fastened about the neck with a button.

   [1111] Epigonation,also hupogonation', a quadrangular shield, reaching
   from the zoneto the knee, and signifying, according to Simeon
   Metaphrastes, the victory over death and the devil.

   [1112] Rabdos, sceptrum.

   [1113] The linen cloth which the priest, before celebrating, threw
   about his neck and shoulders, with the prayer: "Impone, Domine, capiti
   meo galeam salutis ad expugnandos diabolicos excursus." It is nowhere
   mentioned before the eighth century. It answers to the Jewish ephod.

   [1114] Alba vestis, tunica, camisia, the white linen robe which hangs
   from the neck to the feet. From the alb arose, by shortening, the
   surplice (superpelliceum, rochetturn; French: surplis; German:
   Chorrock), which is the ordinary official dress of the lower clergy.

   [1115] Cingulum, balteus, zona, a linen girdle for gathering up the
   alb.

   [1116] Manipulus, sudarium, fano, mappula, originally a napkin, hung
   upon the left arm of deacons and priests, afterward only of bishops,
   after the Confiteor.

   [1117] The stola is a linen vestment hanging from both shoulders. The
   pope wears the stole always; the priest, only when officiating. The
   council of Laodicea after 347 prohibited the wearing of it by
   subdeacons and the lower clergy.

   [1118] Casula, planeta, the mass-vestment, covering the whole body, but
   without sleeves, with a cross behind and before embroidered in gold or
   fine silk. From the casula arose the pluviale, a festive mantle with a
   hood (casula calcullata), used in processions and on other state
   occasions.

   [1119] So called from the place of its origin. It is an overgarment of
   costly material, similar to the casula, and worn under it.

   [1120] The pectorale, crux pectoralis, is the breast-cross of bishops
   and archbishops, and answers probably to the breastplate of the Jewish
   high-priest.

   [1121] The mitra, tiara, infula, birretum, is the episcopal head dress,
   after the type of the Jewish tphntsm (LXX.: kidaris, Vulgate: tiara,
   mitra), originally single, after the eleventh century with two points,
   supposed to denote the two Testaments.

   [1122] On the Jewish sacerdotal vesture and its symbolical meaning,
   Comp. Braun: Vestitus sacerdotum Hebraeorum, Amstel. 1698; Lundius: Die
   jüdischen Heiligthümer, pp. 418-445; Baehr: Symbolik des mosaischen
   Cultus, vol. ii. pp. 61-165.

   [1123]  The prevailing color of the ordinary Jewish priestly costume
   was white; that of the Christian clerical costume, on the contrary, is
   black.

   [1124] "Discernendi a caeteris sumus doctrina, non veste,
   conversatione, non habitu, mentis puritate, non cultu." Comp.
   Thomassin, Vetus ac nova ecclesiae disciplina, P. i. lib. ii. cap. 43.

   [1125] Sess. xiv. cap. 6 de reform.: "Oportet clericos vestes proprio
   congruentes ordini semper deferre, ut per decentiam habitus extrinseci
   morum honestatem intrinsecam ostendant."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER VIII.

   CHRISTIAN ART.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 102. Religion and Art.

   Man is a being intellectual, or thinking and knowing, moral, or willing
   and acting, and aesthetic, or feeling and enjoying. To these three
   cardinal faculties corresponds the old trilogy of the true, the good,
   and the beautiful, and the three provinces of science, or knowledge of
   the truth, virtue, or practice of the good, and art, or the
   representation of the beautiful, the harmony of the ideal and the real.
   These three elements are of equally divine origin and destiny.

   Religion is not so much a separate province besides these three, as the
   elevation and sanctification of all to the glory of God. It represents
   the idea of holiness, or of union with God, who is the original of all
   that is true, good, and beautiful. Christianity, as perfect religion,
   is also perfect humanity. It hates only sin; and this belongs not
   originally to human nature, but has invaded it from without. It is a
   leaven which pervades the whole lump. It aims at a harmonious unfolding
   of all the gifts and powers of the soul. It would redeem and regenerate
   the whole man, and bring him into blessed fellowship with God. It
   enlightens the understanding, sanctifies the will, gives peace to the
   heart, and consecrates even the body a temple of the Holy Ghost. The
   ancient word: "Homo sum, nihil humani a me alienum puto," is fully true
   only of the Christian. "All things are yours," says the Apostle. All
   things are of God, and for God. Of these truths we must never lose
   sight, notwithstanding the manifold abuses or imperfect and premature
   applications of them.

   Hence there is a Christian art, as well as a Christian science, a
   spiritual eloquence, a Christian virtue. Feeling and imagination are as
   much in need of redemption, and capable of sanctification, as reason
   and will.

   The proper and highest mission of art lies in the worship of God. We
   are to worship God "in the beauty of holiness." All science culminates
   in theology and theosophy, all art becomes perfect in cultus. Holy
   Scripture gives it this position, and brings it into the closest
   connection with religion, from the first chapter of Genesis to the last
   chapter of the Revelation, from the paradise of innocence to the new
   glorified earth. This is especially true of the two most spiritual and
   noble arts, of poetry and music, which proclaim the praise of God--in
   all the great epochs of the history of his kingdom from the beginning
   to the consummation. A considerable part of the Bible: the Psalms, the
   book of Job, the song of Solomon, the parables, the Revelation, and
   many portions of the historical, prophetical, and didactic books, are
   poetical, and that in the purest and highest sense of the word.
   Christianity was introduced into the world with the song of the
   heavenly host, and the consummation of the church will be also the
   consummation of poetry and song in the service of the heavenly
   sanctuary.

   Art has always, and in all civilized nations, stood in intimate
   connection with worship. Among the heathen it ministered to idolatry.
   Hence the aversion or suspicion of the early Christians towards it. But
   the same is true of the philosophy of the Greeks, and the law of the
   Romans; yet philosophy and law are not in themselves objectionable. All
   depends on the spirit which animates these gifts, and the purpose which
   they are made to serve.

   The great revolution in the outward condition of the church under
   Constantine dissipated the prejudices against art and the hindrances to
   its employment in the service of the church. There now arose a
   Christian art which has beautified and enriched the worship of God, and
   created immortal monuments of architecture, painting, poetry, and
   melody, for the edification of all ages; although, as the cultus of the
   early church in general perpetuated many elements of Judaism and
   heathenism, so the history of Christian art exhibits many impurities
   and superstitions which provoke and justify protest. Artists have
   corrupted art, as theologians theology, and priests the church. But the
   remedy for these imperfections is not the abolition of art and the
   banishment of it from the church, but the renovation and ever purer
   shaping of it by the spirit and in the service of Christianity, which
   is the religion of truth, of beauty, and of holiness.

   From this time, therefore, church history also must bring the various
   arts, in their relation to Christian worship, into the field of its
   review. Henceforth there is a history of Christian architecture,
   sculpture, painting, and above all of Christian poetry and music.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 103. Church Architecture.

   On the history of Architecture in general, comp. the works of Kugler,
   Kinkel, Schnaase, and others, on the plastic arts; also Kreuser: Der
   christliche Kirchenbau, seine Geschichte, Symbolik u. Bildnerei, Bonn,
   1851. 2 vols., and the English works of Knight, Brown, Close, J.
   Ferguson (A Hist. of Architecture, Lond. 1865, 3 vols.), etc.

   Architecture is required to provide the suitable outward theatre for
   the public worship of God, to build houses of God among men, where he
   may hold fellowship with his people, and bless them with heavenly
   gifts. This is the highest office and glory of the art of building.
   Architecture is a handmaid of devotion. A beautiful church is a sermon
   in stone, and its spire a finger pointing to heaven. Under the old
   covenant there was no more important or splendid building than the
   temple at Jerusalem, which was erected by divine command and after the
   pattern of the tabernacle of the wilderness. And yet this was only a
   significant emblem and shadow of what was to come.

   Christianity is, indeed, not bound to place, and may everywhere worship
   the omnipresent God. The apostles and martyrs held the most solemn
   worship in modest private dwellings, and even in deserts and
   subterranean catacombs, and during the whole period of persecution
   there were few church buildings properly so called. The cause of this
   want, however, lay not in conscientious objection, but in the oppressed
   condition of the Christians. No sooner did they enjoy external and
   internal peace, than they built special places of devotion, which in a
   normal, orderly condition of the church are as necessary to public
   worship as special sacred times. The first certain traces of proper
   church buildings, in distinction from private places, appear in the
   second half of the third century, during the three-and-forty years'
   rest between the persecution of Decius and that of Diocletian. [1126]
   But these were destroyed in the latter persecution.

   The period of church building properly begins with Constantine the
   Great. After Christianity was acknowledged by the state, and empowered
   to hold property, it raised houses of worship in all parts of the Roman
   empire. There was probably more building of this kind in the fourth
   century than there has been in an period since, excepting perhaps the
   nineteenth century in the United States, where, every ten years,
   hundreds of churches and chapels are erected, while in the great cities
   of Europe the multiplication of churches by no means keeps pace with
   the increase of population. [1127] Constantine and his mother Helena
   led the way with a good example. The emperor adorned not only his new
   residential city, but also the holy Places in Palestine, and the
   African city Constantine, with basilicas, partly at his own expense,
   partly from the public treasury. His successors on the throne,
   excepting Julian, as well as bishops and wealthy laymen, vied with each
   other in building, beautifying, and enriching churches. This was
   considered a work pleasing to God and meritorious. Ambition and
   self-righteousness mingled themselves here, as they almost everywhere
   do, with zeal for the glory of God. Chrysostom even laments that many a
   time the poor are forgotten in the church buildings, and suggests that
   it is not enough to adorn the altar, the walls, and the floor, but that
   we must, above all, offer the soul a living sacrifice to the Lord.
   [1128] Jerome also rebukes those who haughtily pride themselves in the
   costly gifts which they offer to God, and directs them to help needy
   fellow-Christians rather, since not the house of stone, but the soul of
   the believer is the true temple of Christ.

   The fourth century saw in the city of Rome above forty great churches.
   [1129] In Constantinople the Church of the Apostles and the church of
   St. Sophia, built by Constantine, excelled in magnificence and beauty,
   and in the fifth century were considerably enlarged and beautified by
   Justinian. Sometimes heathen temples or other public buildings were
   transformed for Christian worship. The Emperor Phocas (602-610), for
   example, gave to the Roman bishop Boniface IV, the Pantheon, built by
   Agrippa under Augustus, and renowned for its immense and magnificent
   dome (now called chiesa della rotonda), and it was thenceforth
   consecrated to the virgin Mary and the martyrs.

   But generally the heathen temples, from their small size and their
   frequent round form, were not adapted for the Christian worship, as
   this is held within the building, and requires large room for the
   congregation, that the preaching and the Scripture-reading may be
   heard; while the heathen sacrifices were performed before the portico,
   and the multitude looked on without the sanctuary. The sanctuary of
   Pandrosos, on the Acropolis at Athens, holds but few persons, and even
   the Parthenon is not so capacious as an ordinary church. The Pantheon
   in Rome is an exception, and is much larger than most temples. The
   small round pagan temples were most easily convertible into Christian
   baptisteries and burial chapels. Far more frequently, doubtless, was
   the material of forsaken or destroyed temples applied to the building
   of churches.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1126] Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 1.

   [1127] The cities of New York, Brooklyn, and Philadelphia, for
   instance, have more churches than the much older cities of Berlin,
   Vienna, and Paris. New York has some three hundred, Berlin and Paris
   each hardly fifty. This is a noble triumph of the voluntary principle
   in religion.

   [1128] Homil. lxxxi in Matth. § 2, and l. § 3.

   [1129] Optatus of Mileve, De schism. Donat. ii. 4: "Inter quadraginta
   et quod excurris basilicas."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 104. The Consecration of Churches.

   New churches were consecrated with great solemnity by prayer, singing,
   the communion, eulogies of present bishops, and the depositing of
   relics of saints. [1130] This service set them apart from all profane
   uses, and designated them exclusively for the service and praise of God
   and the edification of his people. The dedication of Solomon's temple,
   [1131] as well as the purification of the temple after its desecration
   by the heathen Syrians, [1132] furnished the biblical authority for
   this custom. In times of persecution the consecration must have been
   performed in silence. But now these occasions became festivals attended
   by multitudes. Many bishops, like Theodoret, even invited the pagans to
   attend them. The first description of such a festivity is given us by
   Eusebius: the consecration of the church of the Redeemer at the Holy
   Sepulchre, [1133] and of a church at Tyre. [1134]

   After the Jewish precedent, [1135] it was usual to celebrate the
   anniversary of the consecration. [1136]

   Churches were dedicated either to the holy Trinity, or to one of the
   three divine Persons, especially Christ, or to the Virgin Mary, or to
   apostles, especially Peter, Paul, and John, or to distinguished martyrs
   and saints.

   The idea of dedication, of course, by no means necessarily involves the
   superstitious notion of the omnipresent God being inclosed in a
   definite place. On the contrary, Solomon had long before said at the
   dedication of the temple at Jerusalem: "Behold, the heaven and heaven
   of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have
   builded." When Athanasius was once censured for assembling the
   congregation on Easter, for want of room, in a newly built but not yet
   consecrated church, he appealed to the injunction of the Lord, that we
   enter into our closet to pray, as consecrating every place. Chrysostom
   urged that every house should be a church, and every head of a family a
   spiritual shepherd, remembering the account which he must give even for
   his children and servants. [1137] Not walls and roof, but faith and
   life, constitute the church, [1138] and the advantage of prayer in the
   church comes not so much from a special holiness of the place, as from
   the Christian fellowship, the bond of love, and the prayer of the
   priests. [1139] Augustine gives to his congregation the excellent
   admonition: "It is your duty to put your talent to usury; every one
   must be bishop in his own house; he must see that his wife, his son,
   his daughter, his servant, since he is bought with so great a price,
   continues in the true faith. The apostle's doctrine has placed the
   master over the servant, and has bound the servant to obedience to the
   master, but Christ has paid a ransom for both." [1140]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1130] I This last was, according to Ambrose, Epist. 54, the custom in
   Rome, and certainly wherever such relics were to be had.

   [1131] 2 Chron. c. 5-7.

   [1132] Macc. iv. 44 ff.

   [1133] Vita Constant. iv. 43-46.

   [1134] Hist. Eccl. x. 2-4. Eusebius speaks here in general of the
   consecration of churches after the cessation of persecution, and then,
   c. 4, gives an oratio panegyriea, delivered probably by himself, in
   which he describes the church at Tyre in a minute, but pompous way.

   [1135] Ta enkainia, in memory of the purification of the temple under
   the Maccabees, I Macc. iv. 59; John x. 22.

   [1136] Sozomen, H. E. ii. 25 (26). Gregory the Great ordered:
   "Solemnitates ecclesiarum dedicationum per singulos annos sunt
   celebrandae."

   [1137] Hom. vi. in Gen., § 2 Ekklesian poieson sou ten oikian kai gar
   kai epeuthunos ei kai tes ton paidion kai tes oiketon soterias .

   [1138] Serm. in Eutrop.:He ekklesia ou teuchos kai orophos , alla
   pistis kai bios .

   [1139] De incomprehensibili: Entautha esti ti pleon, hoion he homonoia
   kai he sumphonia kai tes agapes ho sundesmos kai hai ton hiereon
   euchai.

   [1140] Serm. 94.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 105. Interior Arrangement of Churches.

   The interior arrangement of the Christian churches in part imitated the
   temple at Jerusalem, in part proceeded directly, from the Christian
   spirit. It exhibits, therefore, like the whole catholic system, a
   mixture of Judaism and Christianity. At the bottom of it lay the ideas
   of the priesthood and of sacrifice, and of fellowship with God
   administered thereby.

   Accordingly, in every large church after Constantine there were three
   main divisions, which answered, on the one hand, to the divisions of
   Solomon's temple, on the other, to the three classes of attendants, the
   catechumens, the faithful, and the priests, or the three stages of
   approach to God. The evangelical idea of immediate access of the whole
   believing congregation to the throne of grace, does not yet appear. The
   priesthood everywhere comes between.

   1. The portico: In this again must be distinguished:

   (a) The inner portico, a covered hall which belonged to the church
   itself, and was called pronaos, or commonly, from its long, narrow
   shape,narthex, ferula, i.e., literally, staff, rod. [1141] The name
   paradise also occurs, because on one side of the wall of the portico
   Adam and Eve in paradise were frequently painted,--probably to signify
   that the fallen posterity of Adam find again their lost paradise in the
   church of Christ. The inner court was the place for all the unbaptized,
   for catechumens, pagans, and Jews, and for members of the church
   condemned to light penance, who might hear the preaching and the
   reading of the Scriptures, but must withdraw before the administration
   of the Holy Supper.

   (b) The outer portico, aule, atrium, also locus lugentium or
   hiemantium, which was open, and not in any way enclosed within the
   sacred walls, hence not a part of the house of God properly so called.
   Here those under heavy penance, the "weepers" [1142] as they were
   called, must tarry, exposed to all weather, and apply with tears to
   those entering for their Christian intercessions.

   In this outer portico, or atrium, stood the laver, [1143] in which,
   after the primitive Jewish and heathen custom, maintained to this day
   in the Roman church, the worshipper, in token of inward purification,
   must wash every time he entered the church. [1144]

   After about the ninth century, when churches were no longer built with
   spacious porticoes, this laver was transferred to the church itself,
   and fixed at the doors in the form of a holywater basin, supposed to be
   an imitation of the brazen sea in the priest's court of Solomon's
   temple. [1145] This symbolical usage could easily gather upon itself
   superstitious notions of the magical virtue of the holy water. Even in
   the pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions the consecrated water is called "a
   means of warding off diseases, frightening away evil spirits, a
   medicine for body and soul, and for purification from sins;" and though
   these expressions related primarily to the sacramental water of baptism
   as the bath of regeneration, yet they were easily applied by the people
   to consecrated water in general. In the Roman Catholic church the
   consecration of the water [1146] is performed on Easter Sunday evening;
   in the Greco-Russian church, three times in the year.

   2. The temple proper, [1147] the holy place, [1148] or the nave of the
   church, [1149] as it were the ark of the new covenant. This part
   extended from the doors of entrance to the steps of the altar, had
   sometimes two or four side-naves, according to the size of the church,
   and was designed for the body of the laity, the faithful and baptized.
   The men sat on the right towards the south (in the men's nave), the
   women on the left towards the north (in the women's nave), or, in
   Eastern countries, where the sexes were more strictly separated, in the
   galleries above. [1150] The monks and nuns, and the higher civil
   officers, especially the emperors with their families, usually had
   special seats of honor in semicircular niches on both sides of the
   altar.

   About the middle of the main nave was the pulpit or the ambo, [1151] or
   subsequently two desks, at the left the Gospel-desk, at the right the
   Epistle-desk, where the lector or deacon read the Scripture lessons.
   The sermon was not always delivered from the pulpit, but more
   frequently either from the steps of the altar (hence the phrase:
   "speaking from the rails"), or from the seat of the bishop behind the
   altar-table. [1152]

   Between the reading-desks and the altar was the odeum, [1153] the place
   for the singers, and at the right and left the seats for the lower
   clergy (anagnosts or readers, exorcists, acolytes). This part of the
   nave lay somewhat higher than the floor of the church, though not so
   high as the altar-choir, and hence was also called the lower choir, and
   the gradual, because steps (gradus) led up to it. In the Eastern church
   the choir and nave are scarcely separated, and they form together the
   naos, or temple hall; in the Western the choir and the sanctuary are
   put together under the name cancelli or chancel.

   3. The most holy place, [1154] or the choir proper; [1155] called also
   in distinction from the lower choir, the high choir, [1156] for the
   priests, and for the offering of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. No
   layman, excepting the emperor (in the east), might enter it. It was
   semi-circular or conchoidal [1157] in form, and was situated at the
   eastern end of the church, opposite the entrance doors, because the
   light, to which Christians should turn themselves, comes from the east.
   [1158] It was separated from the other part of the church by rails or a
   lattice, [1159] and by a curtain, or by sacred doors called in the
   Greek church the picture-wall, iconostas, on account of the sacred
   paintings on it. [1160] While in the Eastern churches this screen is
   still used, it in time gave place in the West to a low balustrade.

   In the middle of the sanctuary stood the altar, [1161] generally a
   table, or sometimes a chest with a lid; at first of wood, then, after
   the beginning of the sixth century, of stone or marble, or even of
   silver and gold, with a wall behind it, and an overshadowing,
   dome-shaped canopy, [1162] above which a cross was usually fixed. The
   altar was hollow, and served as the receptacle for the relics of the
   martyrs; it was placed, where this was possible, exactly over the grave
   of a martyr, probably with reference to the passage in the Revelation:
   "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word
   of God, and for the testimony which they held." [1163] Often a
   subterranean chapel or crypt [1164] was built under the church, in
   order to have the church exactly upon the burial place of the saint,
   and at the same time to keep alive the memory of the primitive worship
   in underground vaults in the times of persecution.

   The altar held therefore the twofold office of a tomb (though at the
   same time the monument of a new, higher life), and a place of
   sacrifice. It was manifestly the most holy place in the entire church,
   to which everything else had regard; whereas in Protestantism the
   pulpit and the word of God come into the foreground, and altar and
   sacrament stand back. Hence the altar was adorned also in the richest
   manner with costly cloths, with the cross, or at a later period the
   crucifix, with burning tapers, symbolical of Christ the light of the
   world, [1165] and previously consecrated for ecclesiastical use, [1166]
   with a splendid copy of the Holy Scriptures, or the mass-book, but
   above all with the tabernacle, or little house for preserving the
   consecrated host, on which in the middle ages the German stone-cutters
   and sculptors displayed wonderful art.

   Side altars did not come into use until Gregory the Great. Ignatius,
   [1167] Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Augustine know of only one
   altar in the church. The Greek church has no more to this day. The
   introduction of such side altars, which however belong not to the altar
   space, but to the nave of the church, is connected with the progress of
   the worship of martyrs and relics.

   At the left of the altar war, the table of prothesis, [1168] on which
   the elements for the holy Supper were prepared, and which is still used
   in the Greek church; at the right the sacristy, [1169] where the
   priests robed themselves, and retired for silent prayer. Behind the
   altar on the circular wall (and under the painting of Christ enthroned,
   if there was one) stood the bishop's chair, [1170] overlooking the
   whole church. On both sides of it, in a semicircle, were the seats of
   the presbyters. None but the clergy were allowed to receive the holy
   Supper within the altar rails. [1171]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1141] Sometimes the narthex again was divided into two rooms, the
   upper place for the kneelers (locus substratorum), i.e., catechumens
   who might participate, kneeling, in the prayers after the sermon (hence
   genuflectentes, gonuklinontesand the lower place, bordering on the
   outer portico, for mere hearers, Jews, and pagans (locus audientium).

   [1142] Flentes, hiemantes.

   [1143] Krene, cantharus, phiala.

   [1144] In Num. xix. 2 ff.; xxxi. 19 ff. (comp. Heb. ix. 13) the
   sprinkling-water, or "water of separation" (i.e., water of
   purification, LXX.: hudor rantismou), already appears, prepared from
   the ashes of the burned red heifer and water, and used for the
   cleansing of those made unclean by contact with a corpse. The later
   Jews were very strict in this; no one could appear in the temple or
   synagogue, or perform any act of worship, prayer, or sacrifice, without
   being washed, 1 Sam. xvi. 6; 2 Chron. xxx. 17. Therefore synagogues
   were built by preference in the neighborhood of streams. The Pharisees
   were very paltry and pedantic in the matter of these washings; comp.
   Matt. xv. 2; Mark vii. 3; Luke xi. 38. The same custom of symbolical
   purification before worship we find among the ancient Egyptians,
   Persians, Brahmans (who ascribed to the water of the Ganges saving
   virtue), Greeks, and Romans, and among the Mohammedans. At the entrance
   of every Turkish mosque stands a large font for this purpose.

   [1145] 1 Kings vii. 23-26; 2 Chron. iv. 2-5.

   [1146] Benedictio fontis.

   [1147] Naos.

   [1148] Hieron..

   [1149] Naus, navis ecclesiae. Many derive this expression from a
   confusion of the Greek naoswith naus and navis. Not till the ninth and
   tenth centuries is navis used in this way. The more exact equivalent in
   English would be long-room, or hall.

   [1150] Called eperoa, the elevated galleries on the side walls. Besides
   this the women's places were protected by wooden lattices from all
   curious or lascivious glances of the men. Chrysostomsays, Homil. 74 in
   Matth.: "Formerly these lattices certainly did not exist; for in Christ
   there is neither male nor female (Gal. iii. 28), and in the time of the
   apostles men and women were together with one accord. But then men were
   still men, and women were women; now women have sunk to the level of
   prostitutes, and men are like horses in rutting." A sad commentary on
   the moral and religious condition of that time!

   [1151] Ambon from anabaino, pulpitum, suggestus. Hence the English
   pulpit, while the corresponding German Kanzelis derived from cancelli.

   [1152] Bema, exedra.

   [1153] Odeion.Subsequently the singers were usually placed in the
   galleries of upper-church.

   [1154] Ta hagia ton hagion, ta aduta, hierateion,, sacrarium,
   sanctuarium.

   [1155] Choros, bema, (ascensus).

   [1156] Hence the terms high mass, high altar.

   [1157] Hence called also konche, shell.

   [1158] Thus so early as this was the line of east and west established
   as the sacred (or church-building) line. Yet there were exceptions.
   Socrates, H. E. v. 22, notes it as peculiar in the church of Antioch,
   that the altar here stood not in the eastern end, but in the western
   (ou gar pros anatolas to thusiasterion, alla pros dusin hora).

   [1159] Amphithura, kinklides,cancelli, whence the name chancel.

   [1160] Eusebius mentions, in his description of the church of the
   bishop Paulinus in Tyre, H. E. x. 4, an elegantly wrought lattice, and
   Athanasius mentions the curtains. Indeed, the pictures placed upon
   these curtains date back even to the fourth century, since Epiphanius,
   Ep. ad Joann. Hierosolymit., inveighed against a painted curtain in a
   village of Palestine. The lattice has perpetuated itself to this day in
   the picture wall or iconostas (eikonostasis) in the Russo-Greek church.
   It bears, on the right the picture of Christ, and on the left that of
   the Virgin Mary, and is pierced with three doors; the middle one,
   called the Emperor's gate (dweri Zarskija), because only the emperor,
   besides the chief priest, may pass through it to take the holy Supper,
   is decorated and distinguished with the utmost splendor; oftentimes a
   golden sun with a thousand rays appears, which suddenly separates
   during the worship, and discloses the altar; or a Mount Zion with
   innumerable temples and battlements; or a network of golden garlands of
   flowers and fruits, among which especially clusters of grapes, probably
   with reference to the sacramental wine, frequently occur.

   [1161] Altare, mensa sacra, thusiasterion, hagia trapezaThe
   altar-cloth, palla, pallia, covers the whole upper face of the altar.
   This must not be confounded with the corporale (eileton,from eileo,
   involvo), i.e., a white linen cloth, with which the oblations prepared
   upon the altar are covered.

   [1162] Purgos, tower; kiborion(of doubtful origin), ciborium,
   umbraculum. Subsequently the ciborium gave place to the steeple-shaped
   tabernaculum for the preservation of the body of Christ. With the
   ciborium the dove-shaped form of the receptacle for the body of Christ
   (hence called peristerion) also gradually disappeared.

   [1163] Rev. vi. 9. In the Greek and Roman churches every altar must
   contain some relics, be they never so unimportant.

   [1164] Kruptai, memoriae, confessiones, testimonia.

   [1165] This usage also no doubt came from Judaism into the Christian
   church; for in the temple at Jerusalem, and in the tabernacle before
   it, a lamp was perpetually burning according to divine command, Exod.
   xxvii. 30f. Probably lamps were in earlier use in the church. But
   tapers also were already in use in the time of Chrysostom, especially
   for lighting the altar, while lamps were rather employed in chapels and
   before images of saints.

   [1166] In the Roman church the second of February, or the fortieth day
   after Christmas, when Mary presented the Lord in the temple, and when
   the aged Simeon prophetically called the child Jesus "a light to
   lighten the Gentiles," is appointed for this consecration, and is hence
   called Candlemas of Mary, a contraction of the two names, Purification
   of Mary and Candlemas.

   [1167] He even expressly (Ep. ad Philad. c. 4) likens the unity of the
   church in the episcopate to the unity of the altar: En thusiasterion,
   hos heis episkopos.

   [1168] Prothesis. oblationarium, still used in the Greek church.

   [1169] Skeuophulaktion, diakonikon, sacristia, sacrorum custodia,
   salutatorium, etc.

   [1170] Thronos, cathedra.

   [1171] Before Ambrosethe emperors were permitted to take their seats
   within the altar-space. But Ambrose, with the approval of Theodosius,
   abolished this custom, and assigned to the emperors a special place at
   the head of the congregation, just outside the rails. Sozomen, H. E.
   vii. 25.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 106. Architectural Style. The Basilicas.

   Comp. the works on the Basilicas by P. Sarnelli (Antica Basilicografia.
   Neapoli, 1686), Ciampini (Rom. 1693), Guttensohn & Knapp (Monumenta di
   Rel. christ., ossia raccolta delle antiche chiese di Roma. Rom. 1822
   sqq. 3 vols.; also in German, München, 1843), Bunsen (Die Basiliken des
   christlichen Roms. München, 1843, a commentary on the preceding), Von
   Quast (Berl. 1845), and Zestermann (Die antiken und die christlichen
   Basiliken. Leipz. 1847).

   The history of church building, from the simple basilicas of the fourth
   century to the perfect Gothic cathedrals of the thirteenth and
   fourteenth, exhibits, like the history of the other Christian arts and
   the sciences, a gradual subjection and transformation of previous
   Jewish and heathen forms by the Christian principle. The church
   succeeded to the inheritance of all nations, but could only by degrees
   purge this inheritance of its sinful adulterations, pervade it with her
   spirit, and subject it to her aims; for she fulfils her mission through
   human freedom, not in spite of it, and does not magically transform
   nations, but legitimately educates them.

   The history of Western architecture is the richer. The East contented
   itself with the Byzantine style, and adhered more strictly to the forms
   of the round temples, baptisteries, and mausoleums; while the West,
   starting from the Roman basilica, developed various styles.

   The style of the earliest Christian churches was not copied from the
   heathen temples, because, apart from their connection with idolatry,
   which was itself highly offensive to the Christian sentiment, they were
   in form and arrangement, as we have already remarked, entirely
   unsuitable to Christian worship. The primitive Christian architecture
   followed the basilicas, and hence the churches built in this style were
   themselves called basilicas. The connection of the Christian and
   heathen basilicas, which has been hitherto recognized, and has been
   maintained by celebrated connoisseurs, [1172] has been denied by some
   modem investigators, [1173] who have claimed for the Christian an
   entirely independent origin. And it is perfectly true, as concerns the
   interior arrangement and symbolical import of the building, that these
   can be ascribed to the Christian mind alone. Nor have any forensic or
   mercantile basilicas, to our knowledge, been transformed into Christian
   churches. [1174] But in external architectural form there is without
   question an affinity, and there appears no reason why the church should
   not have employed this classic form.

   The basilicas, [1175] or royal halls, were public judicial and
   mercantile buildings, of simple, but beautiful structure, in the form
   of a long rectangle, consisting of a main hall, or main nave, two,
   often four, side naves, [1176] which were separated by colonnades from
   the central space, and were somewhat lower. Here the people assembled
   for business and amusement. At the end of the hall opposite the
   entrance, stood a semicircular, somewhat elevated niche (apsis,
   tribune), arched over with a half-dome, where were the seats of the
   judges and advocates, and where judicial business was transacted. Under
   the floor of the tribunal was sometimes a cellar-like place of
   confinement for accused criminals.

   In the history of architecture, too, there is a Nemesis. As the cross
   became changed from a sign of weakness to a sign of honor and victory,
   so must the basilica in which Christ and innumerable martyrs were
   condemned to death, become a place for the worship of the crucified
   One. The judicial tribune became the altar; the seat of the praetor
   behind it became the bishop's chair; the benches of the jurymen became
   the seats of presbyters; the hall of business and trade became a place
   of devotion for the faithful people; the subterranean jail became a
   crypt or burial place, the superterrene birth-place, of a Christian
   martyr. To these were added other changes, especially the introduction
   of a cross-nave between the apse and the main nave, giving to the
   basilica the symbolical form of the once despised, but now glorious
   cross, and forming, so to speak, a recumbent crucifix. The cross with
   equal arms is called the Greek; that with unequal arms, in which the
   transept is shorter than the main nave from the entrance to the altar,
   the Latin. Towers, which express the heavenward spirit of the Christian
   religion, were not introduced till the ninth century, and were then
   built primarily for bells.

   This style found rapid acceptance in the course of the fourth century
   with East and West; most of all in Rome, where a considerable number of
   basilicas, some in their ancient venerable simplicity, some with later
   alterations, are still preserved. The church of St. Maria Maggiore on
   the Esquiline hill affords the best view of an ancient basilica; the
   oldest principal church of Rome--S. Giovanni in Laterano (so named from
   the Roman patrician family of the Laterans), dedicated to the
   Evangelist John and to John the Baptist; the church of St. Paul,
   outside the city on the way to Ostia, which was burnt in 1823, but
   afterwards rebuilt splendidly in the same style, and consecrated by the
   pope in December, 1854; also S. Clemente, S. Agnese, and S. Lorenzo,
   outside the walls--are examples. The old church of St. Peter (Basilica
   Vaticana), which was built on the spot of this apostle's martyrdom, the
   Neronian circus, and was torn down in the fifteenth century (the last
   remnant did not fall till 1606), surpassed all other churches of Rome
   in splendor and wealth, and was rebuilt, not in the same style, but, as
   is well known, in the Italian style of the sixteenth century.

   Next to Rome, Ravenna is rich in old church buildings, among which the
   great basilica of S. Apollinare in Classe (in the port town, three
   miles from the main city, and built about the middle of the sixth
   century) is the most notable. The transept, as in all the churches of
   this city, is wanting.

   In the East Roman empire there appeared even under Constantine sundry
   departures and transitions toward the Byzantine style. The oldest
   buildings there, which follow more or less the style of the Roman
   basilica, are the church at Tyre, begun in 313, destroyed in the middle
   ages, but known to us from the description of the historian Eusebius;
   [1177] the original St. Sophia of Constantine in Constantinople; and
   the churches in the Holy Land, built likewise by him and his mother
   Helena, at, Mamre or Hebron, at Bethlehem over the birth-spot of
   Christ, on the Mount of Olives in memory of the ascension, and over the
   holy sepulchre on Mount Calvary. Justinian also sometimes built
   basilicas, for variety, together with his splendid Byzantine churches;
   and of these the church of St. Mary in Jerusalem was the finest, and
   was destined to imitate the temple of Solomon, but it was utterly
   blotted out by the Mohammedans. [1178]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1172] Bunsen, Schnaase, Kugler, Kinkel, Quast, &e.

   [1173] Zestermann (1847) and Krauser (1851).

   [1174] The passage quoted for this view from Ausonius in his address of
   thanks to the emperor Gratian, his pupil, c. 2: "Forum et basilica olim
   negotiis plena, nunc votis, votisque pro tua salute susceptis," implies
   only, according to the connection, that now all houses and public
   places are full of good wishes for the emperor.

   [1175] Stoai basilikaiThe name comes from that of the highest civil
   magistrate, the archon basileus, who held court in these buildings. In
   the church this designation was very naturally transferred to Christ,
   as the supreme King and Judge. Though of Greek origin, the basilicas
   first reached their full development in Rome, and, properly speaking,
   arose from the forum Romanum. They were strictly fora for the people,
   but roofed, and so protected from rain and heat. The city of Rome had
   ten of them: the Bas. Julia, Ulpia, Porcia, Marciana, &c. Zestermann,
   however, denies the connection of the Roman basilica with the Athenian
   stoa basileios ,from the later times of Roman luxury, when the name
   basilicus was applied to everything grand and costly.

   [1176] Basilicas with a single nave are very rare. The pagan basilica
   of Trier is an instance, and the small church of St. Balbina in Rome,
   said to have been built by Gregory I. in the beginning of the seventh
   century.

   [1177] In the panegyric addressed to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, Hist.
   Eccl. x. c. 4.

   [1178] Comp. the more minute descriptions of these churches in the
   above-mentioned illustrated work of Guttensohn and Knapp: Monumenta di
   religione christ., etc., 1822-'27, and the explanatory text by Bunsen:
   Die Basiliken des christl. Roms. München, 1848. Also Gottfried Kinkel:
   Geschichte der bildenden Künsten bei der christlichen Völkern, i. p. 61
   sqq., and Ferd. von Quast: Die Basilika der Alten.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 107. The Byzantine Style.

   Procopius: De aedificiis Justiniani. L.i.c. 1-3. Car. Dufresne Dom. du
   Cange: Constantinopolis Christiana. Venet. 1729. Salzenberg und Kortüm:
   Altchristliche Baudenkmale Constantinopels vom V. bis XII Jahrh. (40
   magnificent copperplates and illustrations). Berlin, 1854.

   The second style which meets us in this period, is the Byzantine, which
   in the West modified the basilica style, in the East soon superseded
   it, and in the Russo-Greek church has maintained itself to this day. It
   dates from the sixth century, from the reign of the scholarly and
   art-loving emperor Justinian I. (527-565), which was the flourishing
   period of Constantinople and of the centralized ecclesiastico-political
   despotism, in many respects akin to the age of Louis XIV. of France.

   The characteristic feature of this style is the hemispherical dome,
   which, like the vault of heaven with its glory, spanned the centre of
   the Greek or the Latin cross, supported by massive columns (instead of
   slender pillars like the basilicas), and by its height and its
   prominence ruling the other parts of the building. This dome
   corresponds on the one hand to the centralizing principle of the
   Byzantine empire, [1179] but at the same time, and far more clearly
   than the flat basilica, to that upward striving of the Christian spirit
   from the earth towards the height of heaven, which afterwards more
   plainly expressed itself in the pointed arches and the towers of the
   Germanic cathedral. "While in the basilica style everything looks
   towards the end of the building where the altar and episcopal throne
   are set, and by this prevailing connection the upward direction is
   denied a free expression, in the dome structure everything concentrates
   itself about the spacious centre of the building over which, drawing
   the eye irresistibly upward, rises to an awe-inspiring height the
   majestic central dome. The basilica presents in the apse a figure of
   the horizon from which the sun of righteousness arises in his glory;
   the Byzantine building unfolds in the dome a figure of the whole vault
   of heaven in sublime, imposing majesty, but detracts thereby from the
   prominence of the altar, and leaves for it only a place of subordinate
   import."

   The dome is not, indeed, absolutely new. The Pantheon in Rome, whose
   imposing dome has a diameter of a hundred and thirty-two feet, dates
   from the age of Augustus, b.c. 26. But here the dome rises on a
   circular wall, and so strikes root in the earth, altogether in
   character with the heathen religion. The Byzantine dome rests on few
   columns connected by arches, and, like the vault of heaven, freely
   spans the central space of the church in airy height, without shutting
   up that space by walls.

   Around the main central dome [1180] stand four smaller domes in a
   square, and upon each dome rises a lofty gilded cross, which in the
   earlier churches stands upon a crescent, hung with all sorts of chains,
   and fastened by these to the dome.

   The noblest and most complete building of this kind is the renowned
   church of St. Sophia at Constantinople, which was erected in lavish
   Asiatic splendor by the emperor Justinian after a plan by the
   architects Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus (a.d. 532-537),
   and consecrated to the Redeemer, [1181] but was transformed after the
   Turkish conquest into a Mohammedan mosque (Aja Sofia). It is two
   hundred and twenty-eight feet broad, and two hundred and fifty-two feet
   long; the dome, supported by four gigantic columns, rises a hundred and
   sixty-nine feet high over the altar, is a hundred and eight feet in
   diameter, and floats so freely and airily above the great central
   space, that, in the language of the Byzantine court biographer
   Procopius, it seems not to rest on terra firma, but to hang from heaven
   by golden chains. [1182] The most costly material was used in the
   building; the Phrygian marble with rose-colored and white veins, the
   dark red marble of the Nile, the green of Laconia, the black and white
   spotted of the Bosphorus, the gold-colored Libyan. And when the dome
   reflected the brilliance of the lighted silver chandeliers, and sent it
   back doubled from above, it might well remind one of the vault of
   heaven with its manifold starry glories, and account for the proud
   satisfaction with which Justinian on the day of the consecration,
   treading in solemn procession the finished building, exclaimed: "I have
   outdone thee, O Solomon!" [1183] The church of St. Sophia stood
   thenceforth the grand model of the new Greek architecture, not only for
   the Christian East and the Russian church, but even for the Mohammedans
   in the building of their mosques.

   In the West the city of Ravenna, on the Adriatic coast, after Honorius,
   (a.d. 404) the seat of the Western empire, or of the eparchate, and the
   last refuge of the old Roman magnificence and art, affords beautiful
   monuments of the Byzantine style; especially in the church of St.
   Vitale, which was erected by the bishop Maximian in 547. [1184]

   In the West the ground plan of the basilica was usually retained, with
   pillars and entablature, until the ninth century, and the dome and
   vaultings of the Byzantine style were united with it. Out of this union
   arose what is called the Romanesque or the round-arch style, which
   prevailed from the tenth to the thirteenth century, and was then, from
   the thirteenth to the fifteenth, followed by the Germanic or
   pointed-arch style, with its gigantic masterpieces, the Gothic
   cathedrals. From the fifteenth century eclecticism and confusion
   prevailed in architecture, till the modern attempts to reproduce the
   ancient style. The Oriental church, on the contrary, has never gone
   beyond the Byzantine, its productivity almost entirely ceasing with the
   age of Justinian. But it is possible that the Graeco Russian church
   will in the future develop something new.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1179] Kurtz, in his large Handbuch der K. Gesch., 3d ed. i. 372, well
   says: "The Byzantine state, in that maturity of it which
   Constantineintroduced and Justinian completed, was, in polity, as
   astonishing, gorgeous, majestic a centralized edifice, as the church of
   St. Sophia in architecture. The imperial power, as absolute autocracy,
   was the all-ruling, all-moving centre of the whole state life. The main
   dome, over-topping all, the full expression of the majesty of the
   centre, towards which all parts of the building strove, to which all
   were subservient, in the splendor of which all basked, was the court
   and the residence; on it the provinces and the authorities set over
   them leaned, as the subordinate side-domes or half-domes on the main
   one."

   [1180] Tholos.

   [1181] The Wisdom, the Logos, of God; called in Proverbs and the Book
   of Wisdom sophia. Hence the name of the church. There is still standing
   in Constantinople a small church of St Sophia, which was likewise
   erected by Justinian.

   [1182] In 557, the 32d year of Justinian, the eastern part of the dome
   fell in, and destroyed the altar, together with the tabernacle and the
   ambo, but was restored in 561. A similar misfortune befell it by an
   earthquake in the twelfth century, and again in 1346. The Turks let the
   grand structure gradually decay, till finally, by command of the
   Sultan, a.d. 1847-'49, a thorough restoration was undertaken under the
   direction of an Italian architect, Fossati. This brought to light the
   magnificence of the Mosaic pictures which Mohammedan picture-hatred and
   Turkish barbarism had in part destroyed, in part plastered over. The
   Sultan now caused them to be covered with plates of glass, cemented
   with lime; so that they are secure for a time, till the pile shall come
   again into the service of Christianity.

   [1183] Nenikeka se Solomon. Comp. the descriptions in Evagrius: Hist.
   Eccl. l iv. cap. 31; Procopius: De aedific. i. 1; and the poem of Paul
   Silentiarius: Ekphrasis naou tes Sophias(a metrical translation of it
   in the above cited work of Salzenberg and Kortüm).

   [1184] Comp. on these Byzantine churches Kinkel, l. c., i. p. 100 sqq.
   and p. 121 sqq., and the splendid work of Salzenberg and Kortüm,
   Altchristliche Baudenkmale Konstantinopels, etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 108. Baptisteries, Grave-Chapels, and Crypts.

   Baptisteries or Photisteries, [1185] chapels designed exclusively for
   the administration of baptism, are a form of church building by
   themselves. In the first centuries baptism was performed on streams in
   the open air, or in private houses. But after the public exercise of
   Christian worship became lawful, in the fourth century special
   buildings for this holy ordinance began to appear, either entirely
   separate, or connected with the main church (at the side of the western
   main entrance) by a covered passage; and they were generally, dedicated
   to John the Baptist. The need of them arose partly from the still
   prevalent custom of immersion, partly from the fact that the number of
   candidates often amounted to hundreds and thousands; since baptism was
   at that time administered) as a rule, only three or four times a year,
   on the eve of the great festivals (Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, and
   Christmas), and at episcopal sees, while the church proper was filled
   with the praying congregation.

   These baptismal chapels were not oblong, like the basilicas, but round
   (like most of the Roman temples), and commonly covered with a dome.
   They had in the centre, like the bathing and swimming houses of the
   Roman watering places, a large baptismal basin, [1186] into which
   several steps descended. Around this stood a colonnade and a circular
   or polygonal gallery for spectators; and before the main entrance there
   was a spacious vestibule in the form of an entirely walled rectangle or
   oval. Generally the baptisteries had two divisions for the two sexes.
   The interior was sumptuously ornamented; especially the font, on which
   was frequently represented the symbolical figure of a hart panting for
   the brook, or a lamb, or the baptism of Christ by John. The earliest
   baptistery, of the Constantinian church of St. Peter in Rome, whose
   living flood was supplied from a fountain of the Vatican hill, was
   adorned with beautiful mosaic, the green, gold, and purple of which
   were reflected in the water. The most celebrated existing baptistery is
   that of the Lateran church at Rome, the original plan of which is
   ascribed to Constantine, but has undergone changes in the process of
   time. [1187]

   After the sixth century, when the baptism of adults had become rare, it
   became customary to place a baptismal basin in the porch of the church,
   or in the church itself, at the left of the entrance, and, after
   baptism came to be administered no longer by the bishop alone, but by
   every pastor, each parish church contained such an arrangement. Still
   baptisteries also continued in use, and even in the later middle ages
   new ones were occasionally erected.

   Finally, after the time of Constantine it became customary to erect
   small houses of worship or memorial chapels upon the burial-places of
   the martyrs, and to dedicate them to their memory. [1188] These served
   more especially for private edification.

   The subterranean chapels, or crypts, were connected with the churches
   built over them, and brought to mind the worship of the catacombs in
   the times of persecution. These crypts always produce a most earnest,
   solemn impression, and many of them are of considerable archaeological
   interest.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1185] Photisteria, places of enlightening; because the baptized were,
   according to Heb. vi. 4, called "enlightened."

   [1186] Kolombethra, piscina fons baptismalis.

   [1187] In it, according to tradition, the emperor received baptism from
   pope Silvester I But this must be an error; for Constantinedid not
   receive baptism until he was on his death-bed in Nicomedia. Comp. § 2,
   above.

   [1188] Hence the name marturia, martyrum memoriae, confessiones. The
   clergy who officiated in them were called klerikoi marturion,
   martyrarii. The name capellae occurs first in the seventh and eighth
   centuries, and is commonly derived from the cappa (a clerical vestment
   covering the head and body) of St. Martin of Tours, which was preserved
   and carried about as a precious relic and as a national palladium of
   France.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 109. Crosses and Crucifixes.

   Jac. Gretser. (R.C.): De cruce Christi. 2 vols. Ingolst. 1608. Just.
   Lipsius: De cruce Christi. Antw. 1694. Fr. Münter: Die Sinnbilder u.
   Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen. Altona, 1825. C. J. Hefele
   (R.C.): Alter u. älteste Form der Crucifixe (in the 2d vol. of his
   Beiträge zur Kirchengesch., Archäologie u. Liturgik. Tübingen, 1864, p.
   265 sqq.).

   The cross, as the symbol of redemption, and the signing of the cross
   upon the forehead, the eyes, the mouth, the breast, and even upon parts
   of clothing, were in universal use in this period, as they had been
   even in the second century, both in private Christian life and in
   public worship. They were also in many ways abused in the service of
   superstition; and the nickname cross-worshippers, [1189] which the
   heathen applied to the Christians in the time of Tertullian, [1190] was
   in many cases not entirely unwarranted. Besides simple wooden crosses,
   now that the church had risen to the kingdom, there were many crosses
   of silver and gold, or sumptuously set with pearls and gems. [1191]

   The conspicuous part which, according to the statements of Eusebius,
   the cross played in the life of Constantine, is well known: forming the
   instrument of his conversion; borne by fifty men, leading him to his
   victories over Maxentius and Licinius; inscribed upon his banners, upon
   the weapons of his soldiers in his palace, and upon public places, and
   lying in the right hand of his own statue. Shortly afterwards Julian
   accused the Christians of worshipping the wood of the cross. "The sign
   of universal detestation," says Chrysostom, [1192] "the sign of extreme
   penalty, is now become the object of universal desire and love. We see
   it everywhere triumphant; we find it on houses, on roofs, and on walls,
   in cities and hamlets, on the markets, along the roads, and in the
   deserts, on the mountains and in the valleys, on the sea, on ships, on
   books and weapons, on garments, in marriage chambers, at banquets, upon
   gold and silver vessels, in pearls, in painting upon walls, on beds, on
   the bodies of very sick animals, on the bodies of the possessed [--to
   drive away the disease and the demon--], at the dances of the merry,
   and in the brotherhoods of ascetics." Besides this, it was usual to
   mark the cross on windows and floors, and to wear it upon the forehead.
   [1193] According to Augustine this sign was to remind believers that
   their calling is to follow Christ in true humility, through suffering,
   into glory.

   We might speak in the same way of the use of other Christian emblems
   from the sphere of nature; the representation of Christ by a good
   Shepherd, a lamb, a fish, and the like, which we have already observed
   in the period preceding. [1194]

   Towards the end of the present period we for the first time meet with
   crucifixes; that is, crosses not bare, but with the figure of the
   crucified Saviour upon them. The transition to the crucifix we find in
   the fifth century in the figure of a lamb, or even a bust of Christ,
   attached to the cross, sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom.
   [1195] Afterwards the whole figure of Christ was fastened to the cross,
   and the earlier forms gave place to this. The Trullan council of
   Constantinople (the Quinisextum), a.d. 692, directed in the 82d canon:
   "Hereafter, instead of the lamb, the human figure of Christ shall be
   set up on the images." [1196] But subsequently the orthodox church of
   the East prohibited all plastic images, crucifixes among them, and it
   tolerates only pictures of Christ and the saints. The earlier Latin
   crucifixes offend the taste and disturb devotion; but the Catholic art
   in its flourishing period succeeded in combining, in the figure of the
   suffering and dying Redeemer, the expression of the deepest and holiest
   anguish with that of supreme dignity. In the middle age there was
   frequently added to the crucifix a group of Mary, John, a soldier, and
   the penitent Magdalene, who on her knees embraced the post of the
   cross.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1189] Religiosi crucis.

   [1190] Tert. Apolog. c. 16.

   [1191] The cross occurs in three forms: the crux decussata x(called St.
   Andrew's cross, because this apostle is said to have died upon such an
   one); the crux commissa T; and the crux immissa, either with equal arms
   +(the Greek cross), or with unequal (the Roman).

   [1192] In the homily on the divinity of Christ, § 9, tom. i. 571.

   [1193] Ektupoun ton stauron en to metopo, effingere crucem in fronte,
   postare in fronte, which cannot always be understood as merely making
   the sign with the finger on the forehead. Comp. Neander, iii. 547,
   note.

   [1194] Vol. i. § 100 (p. 377 sqq.).

   [1195] Crosses of this sort, colored red, with a white lamb, are thus
   described by Paulinus of Nola in the beginning of the fifth century,
   Epist. 32: "Sub cruce sanguinea niveo stat Christus in agno."

   [1196] Kata ton anthropinon charaktera.Hefele (l.c. 266 sq.) proves
   that crucifixes did not make their first appearance with this council,
   but that some existed before. The Venerable Bede, for example (Opp. ed.
   Giles, tom. iv. . p. 376), relates that a crucifix, bearing on one side
   the Crucified, on the other the serpent lifted up by Moses, was brought
   from Rome to the British cloister of Weremouth in 686. Gregory of
   Tours, also ( 595), De gloria martyrum, lib. i. c. 23, describes a
   crucifix in the church of St. Genesius in Narbonne, which presented the
   Crucified One almost entirely naked (pictura, quae Dominum nostrum
   quasi praecinctum linteo indicat crucifixum). But this crucifix gave
   offence, and was veiled, by order of the bishop, with a curtain, and
   only at times exposed to the people.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 110. Images of Christ.

   Fr. Kugler: Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei seit Constantin dem
   Berlin, 1847, 2 vols.; and other works on the history of painting. Also
   C. Grüneisen: Die bildliche Darstellung der Gottheit. Stuttgart 1828.
   On the Iconoclastic controversies, comp. Maimbourg (R.C.): Histoire de
   l'hérésie de l'Iconoclastes. Par. 1679 sqq. 2 vols. Dallaeus
   (Calvinist): De imaginibus. Lugd. Bat. 1642. Fr. Spanheim: Historia
   imaginum restituta. Lugd. Bat. 1686. P. E. Jablonski ( 1757): De
   origine imaginum Christi Domini, in Opuscul. ed. Water, Lugd. Bat.
   1804, tom. iii. Walch: Ketzergesch., vols. x. and xi. J. Marx: Der
   Bildersturm der byzantinischen Kaiser. Trier, 1839. W. Grimm: Die Sage
   vom Ursprunge der Christusbilder. Berlin, 1843, L. Glückselig:
   Christus-Archäologie, Prag, 1863. Hefele: Beiträge zur
   Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii. Tüb. 1861 (Christusbilder, p. 254 sqq.).
   Comp. the liter. in Hase's Leben Jesu, p. 79 (5th ed. 1865).

   While the temple of Solomon left to the Christian mind no doubt
   concerning the lawfulness and usefulness of church architecture, the
   second commandment seemed directly to forbid a Christian painting or
   sculpture. "The primitive church," says even a modern Roman Catholic
   historian, [1197] "had no images, of Christ, since most Christians at
   that time still adhered to the commandment of Moses (Ex. xx. 4); the
   more, that regard as well to the Gentile Christians as to the Jewish
   forbade all use of images. To the latter the exhibition and veneration
   of images would, of course, be an abomination, and to the newly
   converted heathen it might be a temptation to relapse into idolatry. In
   addition, the church was obliged, for her own honor, to abstain from
   images, particularly from any representation of the Lord, lest she
   should be regarded by unbelievers as merely a new kind and special sort
   of heathenism and creature-worship. And further, the early Christians
   had in their idea of the bodily form of the Lord no temptation, not the
   slightest incentive, to make likenesses of Christ. The oppressed church
   conceived its Master only under the form of a servant, despised and
   uncomely, as Isaiah, liii. 2, 3, describes the Servant of the Lord."

   The first representations of Christ are of heretical and pagan origin.
   The Gnostic sect of the Carpocratians worshipped crowned pictures of
   Christ, together with images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other
   sages, and asserted that Pilate had caused a portrait of Christ to be
   made. [1198] In the same spirit of pantheistic hero-worship the emperor
   Alexander Severus (a.d. 222-235) set up in his domestic chapel for his
   adoration the images of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius, and Christ.

   After Constantine, the first step towards images in the orthodox church
   was a change in the conception of the outward form of Christ. The
   persecuted church had filled its eye with the humble and suffering
   servant-form of Jesus, and found therein consolation and strength in
   her tribulation. The victorious church saw the same Lord in heavenly
   glory on the right hand of the Father, ruling over his enemies. The one
   conceived Christ in his state of humiliation (but not in his state of
   exaltation), as even repulsive, or at least "having no form nor
   comeliness;" taking too literally the description of the suffering
   servant of God in Is. lii. 14 and liii. 2, 3. [1199] The other beheld
   in him the ideal of human beauty, "fairer than the children of men,"
   with "grace poured into his lips;" after the Messianic interpretation
   of Ps. xlv. 3. [1200]

   This alone, however, did not warrant images of Christ. For, in the
   first place, authentic accounts of the personal appearance of Jesus
   were lacking; and furthermore it seemed incompetent to human art duly
   to set forth Him in Whom the whole fulness of the Godhead and of
   perfect sinless humanity dwelt in unity.

   On this point two opposite tendencies developed themselves, giving
   occasion in time to the violent and protracted image controversies,
   until, at the seventh ecumenical council at Nice in 787, the use and
   adoration of images carried the day in the church.

   1. On the one side, the prejudices of the ante-Nicene period against
   images in painting or sculpture continued alive, through fear of
   approach to pagan idolatry, or of lowering Christianity into the
   province of sense. But generally the hostility was directed only
   against images of Christ; and from it, as Neander justly observes,
   [1201] we are by no means to infer the rejection of all representations
   of religious subjects; for images of Christ encounter objections
   peculiar to themselves.

   The church historian Eusebius declared himself in the strongest manner
   against images of Christ in a letter to the empress Constantia (the
   widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine), who had asked him for
   such an image. Christ, says he, has laid aside His earthly
   servant-form, and Paul exhorts us to cleave no longer to the sensible;
   [1202] and the transcendent glory of His heavenly body cannot be
   conceived nor represented by man; besides, the second commandment
   forbids the making to ourselves any likeness of anything in heaven or
   in earth. He had taken away from a lady an image of Christ and of Paul,
   lest it should seem as if Christians, like the idolaters, carried their
   God about in images. Believers ought rather to fix their mental eye,
   above all, upon the divinity of Christ, and, for this purpose, to
   purify their hearts; since only the pure in heart shall see God. [1203]
   The same Eusebius, however, relates of Constantine, without the
   slightest disapproval, that, in his Christian zeal, he caused the
   public monuments in the forum of the new imperial city to be adorned
   with symbolical representations of Christ, to wit, with figures of the
   good Shepherd and of Daniel in the lion's den. [1204] He likewise tells
   us, that the woman of the issue of blood, after her miraculous cure
   (Matt. ix. 20), and out of gratitude for it, erected before her
   dwelling in Caesarea Philippi (Paneas) two brazen statues, the figure
   of a kneeling woman, and of a venerable man (Christ) extending his hand
   to help her, and that he had seen these statues with his own eyes at
   Paneas. [1205] In the same place he speaks also of pictures (probably
   Carpocratian) of Christ and the apostles Peter and Paul, which he had
   seen, and observes that these cannot be wondered at in those who were
   formerly heathen, and who had been accustomed to testify their
   gratitude towards their benefactors in this way.

   The narrow fanatic Epiphanius of Cyprus ( 403) also seems to have been
   an opponent of images. For when he saw the picture of Christ or a saint
   [1206] on the altar-curtain in Anablatha, a village of Palestine, he
   tore away the curtain, because it was contrary to the Scriptures to
   hang up the picture of a man in the church, and he advised the officers
   to use the cloth for winding the corpse of some poor person. [1207]
   This arbitrary conduct, however, excited great indignation, and
   Epiphanius found himself obliged to restore the injury to the village
   church by another curtain.

   2. The prevalent spirit of the age already very decidedly favored this
   material representation as a powerful help to virtue and devotion,
   especially for the uneducated classes, whence the use of images, in
   fact, mainly proceeded.

   Plastic representation, it is true, was never popular in the East. The
   Greek church tolerates no statues, and forbids even crucifixes. In the
   West, too, in this period, sculpture occurs almost exclusively in bas
   relief and high relief, particularly on sarcophagi, and in carvings of
   ivory and gold in church decorations. Sculpture, from its more finite
   nature, lies farther from Christianity than the other arts.

   Painting, on the contrary, was almost universally drawn into the
   service of religion; and that, not primarily from the artistic impulse
   which developed itself afterwards, but from the practical necessity of
   having objects of devout reverence in concrete form before the eye, as
   a substitute for the sacred books, which were accessible to the
   educated alone. Akin to this is the universal pleasure of children in
   pictures.

   The church-teachers approved and defended this demand, though they
   themselves did not so directly need such helps. In fact, later
   tradition traced it back to apostolic times, and saw in the Evangelist
   Luke the first sacred painter. Whereof only so much is true: that he
   has sketched in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles vivid and
   faithful pictures of the Lord, His mother, and His disciples, which are
   surely of infinitely greater value than all pictures in color and
   statues in marble. [1208]

   Basil the Great ( 379) says "I confess the appearance of the Son of God
   in the flesh, and the holy Mary as the mother of God, who bore Him
   according to the flesh. And I receive also the holy apostles and
   prophets and martyrs. Their likenesses I revere and kiss with homage,
   for they are handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden,
   but on the contrary painted in all our churches." [1209] His brother,
   Gregory of Nyssa, also, in his memorial discourse on the martyr
   Theodore, speaks in praise of sacred painting, which "is wont to speak
   silently from the walls, and thus to do much good." The bishop Paulinus
   of Nola, who caused biblical pictures to be exhibited annually at the
   festival seasons in the church of St. Felix, thought that by them the
   scenes of the Bible were made clear to the uneducated rustic, as they
   could not otherwise be; impressed themselves on his memory, awakened in
   him holy thoughts and feelings, and restrained him from all kinds of
   vice. [1210] The bishop Leontius of Neapolis in Cyprus, who at the
   close of the sixth century wrote an apology for Christianity against
   the Jews, and in it noticed the charge of idolatry, asserts that the
   law of Moses is directed not unconditionally against the use of
   religious images, but only against the idolatrous worship of them;
   since the tabernacle and the temple themselves contained cherubim and
   other figures; and he advocates images, especially for their beneficent
   influences. "In almost all the world," says he, "profligate men,
   murderers, robbers, debauchees, idolaters, are daily moved to
   contrition by a look at the cross of Christ, and led to renounce the
   world, and practise every virtue." [1211] And Leontius already appeals
   to the miraculous fact, that blood flowed from many of the images.
   [1212]

   Owing to the difficulty, already noticed, of worthily representing
   Christ Himself, the first subjects were such scenes from the Old
   Testament as formed a typical prophecy of the history of the Redeemer.
   Thus the first step from the field of nature, whence the earliest
   symbols of Christ--the lamb, the fish, the shepherd--were drawn, was
   into the field of pre-Christian revelation, and thence it was another
   step into the province of gospel history itself. The favorite pictures
   of this kind were, the offering-up of Isaac--the pre-figuration of the
   great sacrifice on the cross; the miracle of Moses drawing forth water
   from the rock with his rod--which was interpreted either, according to
   1 Cor. x. 4, of Christ Himself, or, more especially--and frequently, of
   the birth of Christ from the womb of the Virgin; the suffering Job--a
   type of Christ in His deepest humiliation; Daniel in the lion's
   den--the symbol of the Redeemer subduing the devil and death in the
   underworld; the miraculous deliverance of the prophet Jonah from the
   whale's belly--foreshadowing the resurrection; [1213] and the
   translation of Elijah--foreshadowing the ascension of Christ.

   About the middle of the fifth century, just when the doctrine of the
   person of Christ reached its formal settlement, the first
   representations of Christ Himself appeared, even said by tradition to
   be faithful portraits of the original. [1214] From that time the
   difficulty of representing the God-Man was removed by an actual
   representation, and the recognition of the images of Christ, especially
   of the Madonna with the Child, became even a test of orthodoxy, as
   against the Nestorian heresy of an abstract separation of the two
   natures in Christ. In the sixth century, according to the testimony of
   Gregory of Tours, pictures of Christ were hung not only in churches but
   in almost every private house. [1215]

   Among these representations of Christ there are two distinct types
   received in the church:

   (1) The Salvator picture, with the expression of calm serenity and
   dignity, and of heavenly gentleness, without the faintest mark of
   grief. According to the legend, this was a portrait, miraculously
   imprinted on a cloth, which Christ Himself presented to Abgarus, king
   of Edessa, at his request. [1216] The original is of course lost, or
   rather never existed, and is simply a mythical name for the Byzantine
   type of the likeness of Christ which appeared after the fifth century,
   and formed the basis of all the various representations of Christ until
   Raphael and Michael Angelo. These pictures present the countenance of
   the Lord in the bloom of youthful vigor and beauty, with a free, high
   forehead, clear, beaming eyes, long, straight nose, hair parted in the
   middle, and a somewhat reddish beard.

   (2) The Ecce Homo picture of the suffering Saviour with the crown of
   thorns. This is traced back by tradition to St. Veronica, who
   accompanied the Saviour on the way to Golgotha, and gave Him her veil
   to wipe the sweat from His face; whereupon the Lord miraculously
   imprinted on the cloth the image of His thorn-crowned head. [1217]

   The Abgarus likeness and the Veronica both lay claim to a miraculous
   origin, and profess to be eikones acheiropoietai, pictures not made
   with human hands. Besides these, however, tradition tells of pictures
   of Christ taken in a natural way by Luke and by Nicodemus. The Salvator
   picture in the Lateran chapel Sancta Sanctorum in Rome, which is
   attributed to Luke, belongs to the Edessene or Byzantine type.

   With so different pretended portraits of the Lord we cannot wonder at
   the variations of the pictures of Christ, which the Iconoclasts used as
   an argument against images. In truth, every nation formed a likeness of
   its own, according to its existing ideals of art and virtue.

   Great influence was exerted upon the representations of Christ by the
   apocryphal description of his person in the Latin epistle of Publius
   Lentulus (a supposed friend of Pilate) to the Roman senate, delineating
   Christ as a man of slender form, noble countenance, dark hair parted in
   the middle, fair forehead, clear eyes, faultless mouth and nose, and
   reddish beard. [1218] An older, and in some points different,
   description is that of John of Damascus, or some other writer of the
   eighth century, who says: "Christ was of stately form, with beautiful
   eyes, large nose, curling hair, somewhat bent, in the prime of life,
   with black beard, and sallow complexion, like his mother." [1219]

   No figure of Christ, in color, or bronze, or marble, can reach the
   ideal of perfect beauty which came forth into actual reality in the Son
   of God and Son of man. The highest creations of art are here but feeble
   reflections of the original in heaven, yet prove the mighty influence
   which the living Christ continually exerts even upon the imagination
   and sentiment of the great painters and sculptors, and which He will
   exert to the end of the world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1197] Hefele, 1. c. p. 254.

   [1198] Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1, 25, § 6: "Imagines quasdam quidem
   depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas habent,
   dicentes formam Christi factam a Pilato illo in tempore, quo fuit Jesus
   cum hominibus. Et has coronant et proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi
   philosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae et Platonis et
   Aristotelis et reliquorum; et reliquam observationem circa eas,
   similiter ut gentes, faciunt." Comp. Epiphanius, Adv. haer. xxvi. no.
   6; August., De haer. c. 7.

   [1199] So Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph.; Clement, Alex., in several
   places of the Paedagogus and the Stromata; Tertullian, De carne
   Christi, c. 9, and Adv. Jud. c. 14; and Origen, Contra Cels. vi. c. 75.
   Celsus made this low conception of the form of the founder of their
   religion one of his reproaches against the Christians.

   [1200] So Chrysostom, Homil. 27 (al. 28) in Matth. (tom. vii. p. 371,
   in the new Paris ed.): Oude gar thaumatourgon en thaumastos monon, alla
   kai phainomenos haplos polles egeme charitos; kai touto ho prophetes
   (Ps. xlv.) delon elegen; horaios kallei para tous huious ton
   anthropon.The passage in Isaiah (liii. 2) be refers to the ignominy
   which Christ suffered on the cross. So also Jerome, who likewise refers
   Ps. xlv. to the personal appearance of Jesus, and says of him: "Absque
   passionibus crucis universis [hominibus] pulchrior est .... Nisi enim
   babuisset et in vultu quiddam oculisque sidereum, numquam cum statim
   secuti fuissent apostoli, nec qui ad comprehendendum cum venerant.
   corruissent (Jno. xviii.)." Hieron. Ep. 65, c. 8.

   [1201] Kirchengesch., vol. iii. p. 550 (Germ. ed.).

   [1202] Comp. 2 Cor. v. 16.

   [1203] In Harduin, Collect. concil. tom. iv. p. 406. A fragment of this
   letter of Eusebius is preserved in the acts of the council of the
   Iconoclasts at Constantinople in 754, and in the sixth act of the
   second council of Nice in 787.

   [1204] Vita Const. iii. c. 49.

   [1205] Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. cap. 18. According to Philostorgius (vii.
   3), it was for a long time unknown whom the statues at Paneas
   represented, until a medicinal plant was discovered at their feet, and
   then they were transferred to the sacristy. The emperor Juliandestroyed
   them, and substituted his own statue, which was riven by lightning
   (Sozom. v. 21). Probably that statue of Christ was a monument of
   Hadrian or some other emperor, to whom the Phoenicians did obeisance in
   the form of a kneeling woman. Similar representations are to be seen
   upon coins, particularly of the time of Hadrian.

   [1206] "Imaginem quasi Christi vel sancti cujusdam."

   [1207] Epiph. Ep. ad Joann Hierosolym., which Jeromehas preserved in a
   Latin translation. The Iconoclastic council at Constantinople in 754
   cited several works of Epiphanius against images, the genuineness of
   which, however, is suspicious.

   [1208] Jerome, in his biographical sketch of Luke, De viris illustr. c.
   7, is silent concerning this tradition (which did not arise till the
   seventh century or later), and speaks of Luke merely as medicus,
   according to Col. iv. 4.

   [1209] Epist. 205. Comp. his Oratio in Barlaam, Opp. i. 515, and
   similar expressions in Gregory Naz., Orat. 19 (al. 18).

   [1210] Paulinus, Carmen ix. et x. de S. Felicis natali.

   [1211] See the fragments of this apology in the 4th act of the second
   council of Nicaea, and Neander, iii. 560 (2d Germ. ed.), who adds the
   unprejudiced remark: "We cannot doubt that what Leontius here says,
   though rhetorically exaggerated, is nevertheless drawn from life, and
   is founded on impressions actually produced by the contemplation of
   images in certain states of feeling."

   [1212] Pollakis haimaton rhuseis ex eikonon gegonasi.

   [1213] Comp. Matt. xii. 39, 40.

   [1214] The image-hating Nestorians ascribed the origin of iconolatry to
   their hated, in opponent, Cyril of Alexandria, and put it into
   connection with the Monophysite heresy (Assem., Bibl. orient. iii. 2,
   p. 401).

   [1215] De gloria martyrum, lib. i. c. 22.

   [1216] 4 First mentioned by the Armenian historian Moses of Chorene in
   the fifth century, partly on the basis of the spurious correspondence,
   mentioned by Eusebius (H. E i. 13), between Christ and Abgarus Uchomo
   of Edessa. The Abgarus likeness is said to have come, in the tenth
   century, into the church of St. Sophia at Constantinople, thence to
   Rome, where it is still shown in the church of St. Sylvester. But Genoa
   also pretends to possess the original. The two do not look much alike,
   and are of course only copies. Mr. Glückselig (Christus-Archaeologie,
   Prag, 1863) has recently made an attempt to restore from many copies an
   Edessenum redivivum.

   [1217] This Veronica likeness is said to have come to Rome about a.d.
   700, where it is preserved among the relics in St. Peter's, but is
   shown only to noble personages. According to the common view, advocated
   especially by Mabillon and Papebroch, the name Veronica arose from the
   simple error of contracting the two words vera icon (eikon), the true
   image. W. Grimm considers the whole Veronica story a Latin version of
   the Greek Abgarus legend.

   [1218] The letter of Lentulus has been rightly known in its present
   form only since the eleventh century. Comp. Gabler: De authentia
   Epistolae Publii Lentuli ad Senatum R. de J. C. scriptae. Jenae, 1819,
   and 1822 (2 dissertations).

   [1219] Epist. ad Theoph. imper. de venerandis imag. (of somewhat
   doubtful origin), in Joh. Damasc. Opera, tom. i. p. 631, ed. Le Quien.
   A third description of the personal appearance of Christ, but
   containing nothing new, occurs in the fourteenth century, in Nicephorus
   Callisti, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 40.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 111. Images of Madonna and Saints.

   Besides the images of Christ, representations were also made of
   prominent characters in sacred history, especially of the blessed
   Virgin with the Child, of the wise men of the east, as three kings
   worshipping before the manger, [1220] of the four Evangelists, the
   twelve Apostles, particularly Peter and Paul, [1221] of many martyrs
   and saints of the times of persecution, and honored bishops and monks
   of a later day. [1222]

   According to a tradition of the eighth century or later, the Evangelist
   Luke painted not only Christ, but Mary also, and the two leading
   apostles. Still later legends ascribe to him even seven Madonnas,
   several of which, it is pretended, still exist; one, for example, in
   the Borghese chapel in the church of Maria Maggiore at Rome. The
   Madonnas early betray the effort to represent the Virgin as the ideal
   of female beauty, purity, and loveliness, and as resembling her divine
   Son. [1223] Peter is usually represented with a round head, crisped
   hair and beard; Paul, with a long face, bald crown, and pointed beard;
   both, frequently, carrying rolls in their hands, or the first the cross
   and the keys (of the kingdom of heaven), the second, the sword (of the
   word and the Spirit).

   Such representations of Christ, of the saints, and of biblical events,
   are found in the catacombs and other places of burial, on sarcophagi
   and tombstones, in private houses, on cups and seal rings, and (in
   spite of the prohibition of the council of Elvira in 305) [1224] on the
   walls of churches, especially behind the altar.

   Manuscripts of the Bible also, liturgical books, private houses, and
   even the vestments of officials in the large cities of the Byzantine
   empire were ornamented with biblical pictures. Bishop Asterius of
   Amasea in Pontus, in the second half of the fourth century, protested
   against the wearing of these "God-pleasing garments," [1225] and
   advised that it were better with the proceeds of them to honor the
   living images of God, and support the poor; instead of wearing the
   palsied on the clothes, to visit the sick; and instead of carrying with
   one the image of the sinful woman kneeling and embracing the feet of
   Jesus, rather to lament one's own sins with tears of contrition.

   The custom of prostration [1226] before the picture, in token of
   reverence for the saint represented by it, first appears in the Greek
   church in the sixth century. And then, that the unintelligent people
   should in many cases confound the image with the object represented,
   attribute to the outward, material thing a magical power of miracles,
   and connect with the image sundry superstitious notions--must be
   expected. Even Augustine laments that among the rude Christian masses
   there are many image-worshippers, [1227] but counts such in the great
   number of those nominal Christians, to whom the essence of the Gospel
   is unknown.

   As works of art, these primitive Christian paintings and sculptures
   are, in general, of very little value; of much less value than the
   church edifices. They are rather earnest and elevated, than beautiful
   and harmonious. For they proceeded originally not from taste, but from
   practical want, and, at least in the Greek empire, were produced
   chiefly by monks. It perfectly befitted the spirit of Christianity, to
   begin with earnestness and sublimity, rather than, as heathenism, with
   sensuous beauty. Hence also its repugnance to the nude, and its modest
   draping of voluptuous forms; only hands, feet, and face were allowed to
   appear.

   The Christian taste, it is well known, afterwards changed, and, on the
   principle that to the pure all things are pure, it represented even
   Christ on the cross, and the holy Child at His mother's breast or in
   His mothers arms, without covering.

   Furthermore, in the time of Constantine the ancient classical painting
   and sculpture had grievously degenerated; and even in their best days
   they reached no adequate expression of the Christian principle.

   In this view, the loss of so many of those old works of art, which, as
   the sheer apparatus of idolatry, were unsparingly destroyed by the
   iconoclastic storms of the succeeding period, is not much to be
   regretted. It was in. the later middle ages, when church architecture
   had already reached its height, that Christian art succeeded in
   unfolding an unprecedented bloom of painting and sculpture, and in far
   surpassing, on the field of painting at least, the masterpieces of the
   ancient Greeks. Sculpture, which can present man only in his finite
   limitation, without the flush of life or the beaming eye, like a
   shadowy form from the realm of the dead, probably attained among the
   ancient Greeks the summit of perfection, above which even Canova and
   Thorwaldsen do not rise. But painting, which can represent man in his
   organic connection with the world about him, and, to a certain degree,
   in his unlimited depth of soul and spirit, as expressed in the
   countenance and the eye, has waited for the influence of the Christian
   principle to fulfil its perfect mission, and in the Christs of Leonardo
   da Vinci, Fra Beato Angelico, Correggio, and Albrecht Dürer, and the
   Madonnas of Raphael, has furnished the noblest works which thus far
   adorn the history of the art.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1220] Into the representation of the child Jesus in the manger the ox
   and ass were almost always brought, with reference to Is. i. 3: "The ox
   knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not
   know, my people doth not consider."

   [1221] Usually Christ in the middle, and the leading apostles on either
   side. Augustine, De consensu Evangelist. i. 16: "Christus simul cum
   Petro et Paulo in pictis parietibus."

   [1222] Especially the pillar-saint, Symeon. The Antiochians had the
   picture of their deceased bishop Meletius on their seal rings, bowls,
   cups, and on the walls of their apartments. Comp. Chrysostom, Homil. in
   Miletium.

   [1223] The earliest pictures of the Madonna with the child are found in
   the Roman catacombs, and are traced in part by the Cavaliere de Rossi
   (Imagini Scelte, 1863) to the third and second centuries.

   [1224] Conc. Eliberin. or Illiberitin. can. 36: "Placuit picturas in
   ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus
   depingatur." This prohibition seems to have been confined, however, to
   pictures of Christ Himself; else we must suppose that martyrs and
   saints are accounted objects of cultus and adoratio.

   [1225] Himan'tia kecharismena to Theo..

   [1226] Proskunesis.

   [1227] De moribus ecclesiae cath. i. 75: "Novi multos esse picturarum
   adulatores." The Manichaeans charged the entire catholic church with
   image-worship.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 112. Consecrated Gifts.

   It remains to mention in this connection yet another form of decoration
   for churches, which had already been customary among heathen and Jews:
   consecrated gifts. Thus the temple of Delphi, for example, had become
   exceedingly rich through such presents of weapons, silver and golden
   vessels, statues, &c. In almost every temple of Neptune hung votive
   tablets, consecrated to the god in thankfulness for deliverance from
   shipwreck by him. [1228] A similar custom seems to have existed among
   the Jews; for I Sam. xxi. implies that David had deposited the sword of
   the Philistine Goliath in the sanctuary. In the court of the priests a
   multitude of swords, lances, costly vessels, and other valuable things,
   were to be seen.

   Constantine embellished the altar space in the church of Jerusalem with
   rich gifts of gold, silver, and precious stones. Sozomen tells us
   [1229] that Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in a time of famine, sold the
   treasures and sacred gifts of the church, and that afterwards some one
   recognized in the dress of an actress the vestment he once presented to
   the church.

   A peculiar variety of such gifts, namely, memorials of miraculous
   cures, [1230] appeared in the fifth century; at least they are first
   mentioned by Theodoret, who said of them in his eighth discourse on the
   martyrs: "That those who ask with the confidence of faith, receive what
   they ask, is plainly proved by their sacred gifts in testimony of their
   healing. Some offer feet, others hands, of gold or silver, and these
   gifts show their deliverance from those evils, as tokens of which they
   have been offered by the restored." With the worship of saints this
   custom gained strongly, and became in the middle age quite universal.
   Whoever recovered from a sickness, considered himself bound first to
   testify by a gift his gratitude to the saint whose aid he had invoked
   in his distress. Parents, whose children fortunately survived the
   teething-fever, offered to St. Apollonia (all whose teeth, according to
   the legend, had been broken out with pincers by a hangman's servant)
   gifts of jawbones in wax. In like manner St. Julian, for happily
   accomplished journeys, and St. Hubert, for safe return from the perils
   of the chase, were very richly endowed; but the Virgin Mary more than
   all. Almost every church or chapel which has a miracle-working image of
   the mother of God, possesses even now a multitude of golden and silver
   acknowledgments of fortunate returns and recoveries.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1228] Comp. Horace, Ars poet. v. 20.

   [1229] H. E. iv. 25.

   [1230] Ektupomata.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 113. Church Poetry and Music.

   J. Rambach: Anthologie christl. Gesänge aus allen Jahrh. der christl.
   Kirche. Altona, 1817-'33. H. A. Daniel: Thesaurus hymnologicus. Hal.
   1841-'56, 5 vols. Edélestand du Méril: Poésies populaires latines
   antérieures au douzième siècle. Paris, 1843. C. Fortlage: Gesänge der
   christl. Vorzeit. Berlin, 1844. G. A. Königsfeld u. A. W. v. Schlegel:
   Altchristliche Hymnen u. Gesaenge lateinisch u. Deutsch. Bonn, 1847.
   Second collection by Königsfeld, Bonn, 1865. E. E. Koch: Geschichte des
   Kirchenlieds u. Kirchengesangs der christl., insbesondere der deutschen
   evangel. Kirche. 2d ed. Stuttgart, 1852 f. 4 vols. (i. 10-30). F. J.
   Mone: Latein. Hymnen des Mittelalters (from MSS.), Freiburg, 1853-'55.
   (Vol. i., hymns of God and angels; ii., h. of Mary; iii., h. of
   saints.) Bässler: Auswahl Alt-christl. Lieder vom 2-15ten Jahrh.
   Berlin, 1858. R. Ch. Trench: Sacred Latin Poetry, chiefly lyrical,
   selected and arranged for use; with Notes and Introduction (1849), 2d
   ed. improved, Lond. and Cambr. 1864. The valuable hymnological works of
   Dr. J. M. Neale (of Sackville College, Oxford): The Ecclesiastical
   Latin Poetry of the Middle Ages (in Henry Thompson's History of Roman
   Literature, Lond. and Glasgow., 1852, p. 213 ff.); Mediaeval Hymns and
   Sequences, Lond. 1851; Sequentiae ex Missalibus, 1852; Hymns of the
   Eastern Church, 1862, several articles in the Ecclesiologist; and a
   Latin dissertation, De Sequentiis, in the Essays on Liturgiology, etc.,
   p. 359 sqq. (Comp. also J. Chandler: The Hymns of the Primitive Church,
   now first collected, translated, and arranged, Lond. 1837.)

   Poetry, and its twin sister music, are the most sublime and spiritual
   arts, and are much more akin to the genius of Christianity, and
   minister far more copiously to the purposes of devotion and edification
   than architecture, painting, and sculpture. They employ word and tone,
   and can speak thereby more directly to the spirit than the plastic arts
   by stone and color, and give more adequate expression to the whole
   wealth of the world of thought and feeling. In the Old Testament, as is
   well known, they were essential parts of divine worship; and so they
   have been in all ages and almost all branches of the Christian church.

   Of the various species of religious poetry, the hymn is the earliest
   and most important. It has a rich history, in which the deepest
   experiences of Christian life are stored. But it attains full bloom in
   the Evangelical church of the German and English tongue, where it, like
   the Bible, becomes for the first time truly the possession of the
   people, instead of being restricted to priest or choir.

   The hymn, in the narrower sense, belongs to lyrical poetry, or the
   poetry of feeling, in distinction from the epic and dramatic. It
   differs also from the other forms of the lyric (ode, elegy, sonnet,
   cantata, &c.) in its devotional nature, its popular form, and its
   adaptation to singing. The hymn is a popular spiritual song, presenting
   a healthful Christian sentiment in a noble, simple, and universally
   intelligible form, and adapted to be read and sung with edification by
   the whole congregation of the faithful. It must therefore contain
   nothing inconsistent with Scripture, with the doctrines of the church,
   with general Christian experience, or with the spirit of devotion.
   Every believing Christian can join in the Gloria in Excelsis or the Te
   Deum. The classic hymns, which are, indeed, comparatively few, stand
   above confessional differences, and resolve the discords of human
   opinions in heavenly harmony. They resemble in this the Psalms, from
   which all branches of the militant church draw daily nourishment and
   comfort. They exhibit the bloom of the Christian life in the Sabbath
   dress of beauty and holy rapture. They resound in all pious hearts, and
   have, like the daily rising sun and the yearly returning spring, an
   indestructible freshness and power. In truth, their benign virtue
   increases with increasing age, like that of healing herbs, which is the
   richer the longer they are bruised. They are true benefactors of the
   struggling church, ministering angels sent forth to minister to them
   who shall be heirs of salvation. Next to the Holy Scripture, a good
   hymn-book is the richest fountain of edification.

   The book of Psalms is the oldest Christian hymn-book, inherited by the
   church from the ancient covenant. The appearance of the Messiah upon
   earth was the beginning of Christian poetry, and was greeted by the
   immortal songs of Mary, of Elizabeth, of Simeon, and of the heavenly
   host. Religion and poetry are married, therefore, in the gospel. In the
   Epistles traces also appear of primitive Christian songs, in rhythmical
   quotations which are not demonstrably taken from the Old Testament.
   [1231] We know from the letter of the elder Pliny to Trajan, that the
   Christians, in the beginning of the second century, praised Christ as
   their God in songs; and from a later source, that there was a multitude
   of such songs. [1232]

   Notwithstanding this, we have no complete religious song remaining from
   the period of persecution, except the song of Clement of Alexandria to
   the divine Logos--which, however, cannot be called a hymn, and was
   probably never intended for public use--the Morning Song [1233] and the
   Evening Song [1234] in the Apostolic Constitutions, especially the
   former, the so-called Gloria in Excelsis, which, as an expansion of the
   doxology of the heavenly hosts, still rings in all parts of the
   Christian world. Next in order comes the Te Deum, in its original
   Eastern form, or the kath hekasten hemeran, which is older than
   Ambrose. The Ter Sanctus, and several ancient liturgical prayers, also
   may be regarded as poems. For the hymn is, in fact, nothing else than a
   prayer in the festive garb of poetical inspiration, and the best
   liturgical prayers are poetical creations. Measure and rhyme are by no
   means essential.

   Upon these fruitful biblical and primitive Christian models arose the
   hymnology of the ancient catholic church, which forms the first stage
   in the history of hymnology, and upon which the mediaeval, and then the
   evangelical Protestant stage, with their several epochs, follow.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1231] E.g., Eph. v. 14, where either the Holy Spirit moving in the
   apostolic poesy, or (as I venture to suggest) the previously mentioned
   Light personified, is introduced (dio legei) speaking in three
   strophes: Egeire ho katheudon, Kai anasta ek ton nekron; Kai epiphausei
   soi ho Christos. Comp. Rev. iv. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11; and
   my History of the Apostolic Church, § 141.

   [1232] 2 Comp. Euseb. H. E. v. 28.

   [1233] HuUmnos heothinos, beginning: Doxa en hupsistois Theo, in Const.
   Apost. vii. 47 (al, 48), and in Daniel's Thesaur. hymnol. iii. p. 4.

   [1234] HuUmnos esperinos, which begins: Phos hilaron hagias doxes, see
   Daniel, iii 5.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 114. The Poetry of the Oriental Church.

   Comp. the third volume of Daniel's Thesaurus hymnologicus (the Greek
   section prepared by B. Vormbaum); the works of J. M. Neale, quoted sub
   § 113; an article on Greek Hymnology in the Christian Remembrancer, for
   April, 1859, London; also the liturgical works quoted § 98.

   We should expect that the Greek church, which was in advance in all
   branches of Christian doctrine and culture, and received from ancient
   Greece so rich a heritage of poetry, would give the key also in church
   song. This is true to a very limited extent. The Gloria in excelsis and
   the Te Deum are unquestionably the most valuable jewels of sacred
   poetry which have come down from the early church, and they are both,
   the first wholly, the second in part of Eastern origin, and going back
   perhaps to the third or second century. [1235] But, excepting these
   hymns in rhythmic prose, the Greek church of the first six centuries
   produced nothing in this field which has had permanent value or general
   use. [1236] It long adhered almost exclusively to the Psalms of David,
   who, as Chrysostom says, was first, middle, and last in the assemblies
   of the Christians, and it had, in opposition to heretical
   predilections, even a decided aversion to the public use of uninspired
   songs. Like the Gnostics before them, the Arians and the Apollinarians
   employed religious poetry and music as a popular means of commending
   and propagating their errors, and thereby, although the abuse never
   forbids the right use, brought discredit upon these arts. The council
   of Laodicea, about a.d. 360, prohibited even the ecclesiastical use of
   all uninspired or "private hymns," [1237] and the council of Chalcedon,
   in 451, confirmed this decree.

   Yet there were exceptions. Chrysostom thought that the perverting
   influence of the Arian hymnology in Constantinople could be most
   effectually counteracted by the positive antidote of solemn antiphonies
   and doxologies in processions. Gregory Nazianzen composed orthodox
   hymns in the ancient measure; but from their speculative theological
   character and their want of popular spirit, these hymns never passed
   into the use of the church. The same may be said of the productions of
   Sophronius of Jerusalem, who glorified the high festivals in
   Anacreontic stanzas; of Synesius of Ptolemais (about a.d. 410), who
   composed philosophical hymns; of Nonnus of Panopolis in Egypt, who
   wrote a paraphrase of the Gospel of John in hexameters; of Eudoxia, the
   wife of the emperor Theodosius II.; and of Paul Silentiarius, a
   statesman under Justinian I., from whom we have several epigrams and an
   interesting poetical description of the church of St. Sophia, written
   for its consecration. Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople ( 458), is
   properly the only poet of this period who realized to any extent the
   idea of the church hymn, and whose songs were adapted to popular use.
   [1238]

   The Syrian church was the first of all the Oriental churches to produce
   and admit into public worship a popular orthodox poetry, in opposition
   to the heretical poetry of the Gnostic Bardesanes (about a.d. 170) and
   his son Harmonius. Ephraim Syrus ( 378) led the way with a large number
   of successful hymns in the Syrian language, and found in Isaac,
   presbyter of Antioch, in the middle of the fifth century, and
   especially in Jacob, bishop of Sarug in Mesopotamia ( 521), worthy
   successors. [1239]

   After the fifth century the Greek church lost its prejudices against
   poetry, and produced a great but slightly known abundance of sacred
   songs for public worship.

   In the history of the Greek church poetry, as well as the Latin, we may
   distinguish three epochs: (1) that of formation, while it was slowly
   throwing off classical metres, and inventing its peculiar style, down
   to about 650; (2) that of perfection, down to 820; (3) that of decline
   and decay, to 1400 or to the fall of Constantinople. The first period,
   beautiful as are some of the odes of Gregory of Nazianzen and
   Sophronius of Jerusalem, has impressed scarcely any traces on the Greek
   office books. The flourishing period of Greek poetry coincides with the
   period of the image controversies, and the most eminent poets were at
   the same time advocates of images; pre-eminent among them being John of
   Damascus, who has the double honor of being the greatest theologian and
   the greatest poet of the Greek church.

   The flower of Greek poetry belongs, therefore, in a later division of
   our history. Yet, since we find at least the rise of it in the fifth
   century, we shall give here a brief description of its peculiar
   character.

   The earliest poets of the Greek church, especially Gregory Nazianzen,
   in the fourth, and Sophronius of Jerusalem in the seventh century,
   employed the classical metres, which are entirely unsuitable to
   Christian ideas and church song, and therefore gradually fell out of
   use. [1240] Rhyme found no entrance into the Greek church. In its stead
   the metrical or harmonic prose was adopted from the Hebrew poetry and
   the earliest Christian hymns of Mary, Zacharias, Simeon, and the
   angelic host. Anatolius of Constantinople ( 458) was the first to
   renounce the tyranny of the classic metre and strike out a new path.
   The essential points in the peculiar system of the Greek versification
   are the following: [1241]

   The first stanza, which forms the model of the succeeding ones, is
   called in technical language Hirmos, because it draws the others after
   it. The succeeding stanzas are called Troparia (stanzas), and are
   divided, for chanting, by commas, without regard to the sense. A number
   of troparia, from three to twenty or more, forms an Ode, and this
   corresponds to the Latin Sequence, which was introduced about the same
   time by the monk Notker in St. Gall. Each ode is founded on a hirmos
   and ends with a troparion in praise of the Holy Virgin. [1242] The odes
   are commonly arranged (probably after the example of such Psalms as the
   25th, 112th, and 119th) in acrostic, sometimes in alphabetic, order.
   Nine odes form a Canon. [1243] The older odes on the great events of
   the incarnation, the resurrection, and the ascension, are sometimes
   sublime; but the later long canons, in glorification of unknown martyrs
   are extremely prosaic and tedious and full of elements foreign to the
   gospel. Even the best hymnological productions of the East lack the
   healthful simplicity, naturalness, fervor, and depth of the Latin and
   of the Evangelical Protestant hymn.

   The principal church poets of the East are Anatolius ( 458), Andrew of
   Crete (660-732), Germanus I. (634-734), John Of Damascus ( about 780),
   Cosmas of Jerusalem, called the Melodist (780), Theophanes (759-818),
   Theodore of the Studium (826), Methodius I. (846), Joseph of the
   Studium (830), Metrophanes of Smyrna ( 900), Leo VI. (886-917), and
   Euthymius ( 920).

   The Greek church poetry is contained in the liturgical books,
   especially in the twelve volumes of the Menaea, which correspond to the
   Latin Breviary, and consist, for the most part, of poetic or
   half-poetic odes in rhythmic prose. [1244] These treasures, on which
   nine centuries have wrought, have hitherto been almost exclusively
   confined to the Oriental church, and in fact yield but few grains of
   gold for general use. Neale has latterly made a happy effort to
   reproduce and make accessible in modern English metres, with very
   considerable abridgments, the most valuable hymns of the Greek church.
   [1245]

   We give a few specimens of Neale's translations of hymns of St.
   Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, who attended the council of
   Chalcedon (451). The first is a Christmas hymn, commencing in Greek:

   Mega kai paradoxon thauma.


   "A great and mighty wonder,

   The festal makes secure:

   The Virgin bears the Infant

   With Virgin-honor pure.


   The Word is made incarnate,

   And yet remains on high:

   And cherubim sing anthems

   To shepherds from the sky.


   And we with them triumphant

   Repeat the hymn again:

   'To God on high be glory,

   And peace on earth to men!'


   While thus they sing your Monarch,

   Those bright angelic bands,

   Rejoice, ye vales and mountains!

   Ye oceans, clap your hands!


   Since all He comes to ransom,

   By all be He adored,

   The Infant born in Bethlehem,

   The Saviour and the Lord!


   Now idol forms shall perish,

   All error shall decay,

   And Christ shall wield His sceptre,

   Our Lord and God for aye."

   Another specimen of a Christmas hymn by the same, commencing en
   Bethleem:


   "In Bethlehem is He born!

   Maker of all things, everlasting God!

   He opens Eden's gate,

   Monarch of ages! Thence the fiery sword

   Gives glorious passage; thence,

   The severing mid-wall overthrown, the powers

   Of earth and Heaven are one;

   Angels and men renew their ancient league,

   The pure rejoin the pure,

   In happy union! Now the Virgin-womb

   Like some cherubic throne

   Containeth Him, the Uncontainable:

   Bears Him, whom while they bear

   The seraphs tremble! bears Him, as He comes

   To shower upon the world

   The fulness of His everlasting love!

   One more on Christ calming the storm, zopheras trikumias, as reproduced
   by Neale:


   "Fierce was the wild billow

   Dark was the night;

   Oars labor'd heavily;

   Foam glimmer'd white;

   Mariners trembled

   Peril was nigh;

   Then said the God of God

   --'Peace! It is I.'


   Ridge of the mountain-wave,

   Lower thy crest!

   Wail of Euroclydon,

   Be thou at rest!

   Peril can none be--

   Sorrow must fly

   Where saith the Light of Light,

   --'Peace! It is I.'


   Jesu, Deliverer!

   Come Thou to me:

   Soothe Thou my voyaging

   Over life's sea!

   Thou, when the storm of death

   Roars, sweeping by,

   Whisper, O Truth of Truth!

   - 'Peace! It is I.' "
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1235] That the so-called Hymnus angelicus, based on Luke ii. 14, is of
   Greek origin, and was used as a morning hymn, is abundantly proven by
   Daniel, Thesaurus hymnol. tom. ii. p. 267 sqq. It is found in slightly
   varying forms in the Apostolic Constitutions, l. vii. 47 (al. 48), in
   the famous Alexandrian Codex of the Bible, and other places. Of the so
   called Ambrosian hymn or Te Deum, parts at least are Greek, Comp.
   Daniel, l. c. p. 276 sqq.

   [1236] We cannot agree with the anonymous author of the article in the
   "Christian Remembrancer" for April, 1859, p. 282, who places Cosmas of
   Maiuma as high as Adam of S. Victor, John of Damascus as high as
   Notker, Andrew of Crete as high as S. Bernard, and thinks Theophanes
   and Theodore of the Studium in no wise inferior to the best of Sequence
   writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

   [1237] Can. 59: Ou dei idiotikous psalmous legesthai en te ekklesia. By
   this must doubtless be understood not only heretical, but, as the
   connection shows, all extrabiblical hymns composed by men, in
   distinction from the kanonika biblia tes kaines kai palaias diathekes .

   [1238] Neale, in his Hymns of the Eastern Church, p. 3 sqq., gives
   several of them in free metrical reproduction. See below.

   [1239] On the Syrian hymnology there are several special treatises, by
   Augusti: De hymnis Syrortim sacris, 1814; Hahn: Bardesanes Gnosticus,
   Syrorum primus hymnologus, 1819; Zingerle: Die heil. Muse der Syrer,
   1833 (with German translations from Ephraim). Comp. also Jos. Six.
   Assemani: Bibl. orient. i. 80 sqq. (with Latin versions), and Daniel's
   Thes. hymnol. tom. iii. 1855, pp. 139-268. The Syrian hymns for
   Daniel's Thesaurus were prepared by L. Splieth, who gives them with the
   German version of Zingerle. An English version by H. Burgess: Select
   metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephraem S., Lond. 1853, 2 vols.

   [1240] See some odes of Gregory, Euthymius and Sophronius in Daniel's
   Thes. tom. iii. p. 5 sqq. He gives also the hymn of Clement of Alex.
   (humnos tou soteros Christou), the umnos heothinos ,and humnos
   hesperinos, of the third century.

   [1241] See the details in Neale's works, whom we mainly follow as
   regards the Eastern hymnology, and in the article above alluded to in
   the "Christian Remembrancer" (probably also by Neale).

   [1242] Hence this last troparion is called Theotokion, from theotokos,
   the constant predicate of the Virgin Mary. The Stauro-theotokion
   celebrates Mary at the cross.

   [1243] Kanon.Neale says (Hymns of the East. Ch. Introd. p. xxix.): "A
   canon consists of Nine Odes--each Ode containing any number of troparia
   from three to beyond twenty. The reason for the number nine is this:
   that there are nine Scriptural canticles employed at Lauds (eis ton
   Orthron), on the model of which those in every Canon are formed. The
   first: that of Moses after the passage of the Red Sea--the second, that
   of Moses in Deuteronomy (ch. xxxiii.)- the third, that of Hannah--the
   fourth, that of Habakkuk--the fifth, that of Isaiah (ch. xxvi.
   9-20)--the sixth, that of Jonah--the seventh, that of the Three
   Children (verses 3-34, our "Song" in the Bible Version)--the eighth,
   Benedicite--the ninth, Magnificat and Benedictus."

   [1244] Neale, l. c. p. xxxviii., says of the Oriental Breviary: "This
   is the staple of those three thousand pages--under whatever name the
   stanzas may be presented forming Canons and Odes; as Troparia,
   Idiomela, Stichera, Stichoi, Contakia, Cathismata, Theotokia, Triodia,
   Stauro-theotokia, Catavasiai--or whatever else. Nine-tenths of the
   Eastern Service-book is poetry." Besides these we find poetical pieces
   also in the other liturgical books: the Paracletice or the Great
   Octoechus, in eight parts (for eight weeks and Sundays), the small
   Octoechus, the Triodion (for the Lent season), and the Pentecostarion
   (for the Easter season). Neale (p. xli.) reckons that all these volumes
   together would form at least 5,000 closely-printed, double column
   quarto pages, of which 4,000 pages would be poetry. He adds an
   expression of surprise at the "marvellous ignorance in which English
   ecclesiastical scholars are content to remain of this huge treasure of
   divinity--the gradual completion of nine centuries at least."
   Respecting the value of these poetical and theological treasures,
   however, few will agree with this learned and enthusiastic Anglican
   venerator of the Oriental church.

   [1245] Neale, in his preface, says of his translations: "These are
   literally, I believe, the only English versions of any part of the
   treasures of Oriental Hymnology. There is scarcely a first or
   second-rate hymn of the Roman Breviary which has not been translated:
   of many we have six or eight versions. The eighteen quarto volumes of
   Greek church-poetry can only at present be known to the English reader
   by my little book."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 115. The Latin Hymn.

   More important than the Greek hymnology is the Latin from the fourth to
   the sixteenth century. Smaller in compass, it surpasses it in artless
   simplicity and truth, and in richness, vigor, and fulness of thought,
   and is much more akin to the Protestant spirit. With objective churchly
   character it combines deeper feeling and more subjective appropriation
   and experience of salvation, and hence more warmth and fervor than the
   Greek. It forms in these respects the transition to the Evangelical
   hymn, which gives the most beautiful and profound expression to the
   personal enjoyment of the Saviour and his redeeming grace. The best
   Latin hymns have come through the Roman Breviary into general use, and
   through translations and reproductions have become naturalized in
   Protestant churches. They treat for the most part of the great facts of
   salvation and the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. But many of
   them are devoted to the praises of Mary and the martyrs, and vitiated
   with superstitions.

   In the Latin church, as in the Greek, heretics gave a wholesome impulse
   to poetical activity. The two patriarchs of Latin church poetry, Hilary
   and Ambrose, were the champions of orthodoxy against Arianism in the
   West.

   The genius of Christianity exerted an influence, partly liberating,
   partly transforming, upon the Latin language and versification. Poetry
   in its youthful vigor is like an impetuous mountain torrent, which
   knows no bounds and breaks through all obstacles; but in its riper form
   it restrains itself and becomes truly free in self-limitation; it
   assumes a symmetrical, well-regulated motion and combines it with
   periodical rest. This is rhythm, which came to its perfection in the
   poetry of Greece and Rome. But the laws of metre were an undue
   restraint to the new Christian spirit which required a new form. The
   Latin poetry of the church has a language of its own, a grammar of its
   own, a prosody of its own, and a beauty of its own, and in freshness,
   vigor, and melody even surpasses the Latin poetry of the classics. It
   had to cast away all the helps of the mythological fables, but drew a
   purer and richer inspiration from the sacred history and poetry of the
   Bible, and the heroic age of Christianity. But it had first to pass
   through a state of barbarism like the Romanic languages of the South of
   Europe in their transition from the old Latin. We observe the Latin
   language under the influence of the youthful and hopeful religion of
   Christ, as at the breath of a second spring, putting forth fresh
   blossoms and flowers and clothing itself with a new garment of beauty,
   old words assuming new and deeper meanings, obsolete words reviving,
   new words forming. In all this there is much to offend a fastidious
   classical taste, yet the losses are richly compensated by the gains.
   Christianity at its triumph in the Roman empire found the classical
   Latin rapidly approaching its decay and dissolution; in the course of
   time it brought out of its ashes a new creation.

   The classical system of prosody was gradually loosened, and accent
   substituted for quantity. Rhyme, unknown to the ancients as a system or
   rule, was introduced in the middle or at the end of the verse, giving
   the song a lyrical character, and thus a closer affinity with music.
   For the hymns were to be sung in the churches. This accented and rhymed
   poetry was at first, indeed, very imperfect, yet much better adapted to
   the freedom, depth, and warmth of the Christian spirit, than the
   stereotyped, stiff, and cold measure of the heathen classics. [1246]
   Quantity is a more or less arbitrary and artificial device; accent, or
   the emphasizing of one syllable in a polysyllabic word, is natural and
   popular, and commends itself to the ear. Ambrose and his followers,
   with happy instinct, chose for their hymns the Iambic dimeter, which is
   the least metrical and the most rhythmical of all the ancient metres.
   The tendency to euphonious rhyme went hand in hand with the accented
   rhythm, and this tendency appears occasionally in its crude beginnings
   in Hilary and Ambrose, but more fully in Damasus, the proper father of
   this improvement.

   Rhyme is not the invention of either a barbaric or an overcivilized
   age, but appears more or less in almost all nations, languages, and
   grades of culture. Like rhythm it springs from the natural esthetic
   sense of proportion, euphony, limitation, and periodic return. [1247]
   It is found here and there, even in the oldest popular poetry of
   republican Rome, that of Ennius, for example. [1248] It occurs not
   rarely in the prose even of Cicero, and especially of St. Augustine,
   who delights in ingenious alliterations and verbal antitheses, like
   patet and latet, spes and res, fides and vides, bene and plene, oritur
   and moritur. Damasus of Rome introduced it into sacred poetry. [1249]
   But it was in the sacred Latin poetry of the middle age that rhyme
   first assumed a regular form, and in Adam of St. Victor, Hildebert, St.
   Bernard, Bernard of Clugny, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Thomas a
   Celano, and Jacobus de Benedictis (author of the Stabat mater), it
   reached its perfection in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; above
   all, in that incomparable giant hymn on the judgment, the tremendous
   power of which resides, first indeed in its earnest matter, but next in
   its inimitable mastery of the musical treatment of vowels. I mean, of
   course, the Dies irae of the Franciscan monk Thomas a Celano (about
   1250), which excites new wonder on every reading, and to which no
   translation in any modern language can do full justice. In Adam of St.
   Victor, too, of the twelfth century, occur unsurpassable rhymes; e.g.,
   the picture of the Evangelist John (in the poem: De, S. Joanne
   evangelista), which Olshausen has chosen for the motto of his
   commentary on the fourth Gospel, and which Trench declares the most
   beautiful stanza in the Latin church poetry:


   "Volat avis sine meta

   Quo nee vates nec propheta

   Evolavit altius:

   Tam implenda, [1250] quam impleta [1251]

   Nunquam vidit tot secreta

   Purus homo purius."

   The metre of the Latin hymns is various, and often hard to be defined.
   Gavanti [1252] supposes six principal kinds of verse:

   1. Iambici dimetri(as: "Vexilla regis prodeunt").

   2. Iambici trimetri(ternarii vel senarii, as: "Autra deserti teneris
   sub annis").

   3. Trochaici dimetri("Pange, lingua, gloriosi corporis mysterium," a
   eucharistic hymn of Thomas Aquinas).

   4. Sapphici, cum Adonicoin fine (as: "Ut queant axis resonare fibris").

   5. Trochaici(as: "Ave maris stella").

   6. Asclepiadici, cum Glyconicoin fine (as: "Sacris solemniis juncta
   sint gaudia").

   In the period before us the Iambic dimeter prevails; in Hilary and
   Ambrose without exception.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1246] Archbishop Trench (Sacred Latin Poetry, 2d ed. Introd. p. 9): "A
   struggle commenced from the first between the form and the spirit,
   between the old heathen form and the new Christian spirit--the latter
   seeking to release itself from the shackles and restraints which the
   former imposed upon it; and which were to it, not a help and a support,
   as the form should be, but a hindrance and a weakness--not liberty, but
   now rather a most galling bondage. The new wine went on fermenting in
   the old bottles, till it burst them asunder, though not itself to be
   spilt and lost in the process, but to be gathered into nobler chalices,
   vessels more fitted to contain it--new, even as that which was poured
   into them was new." This process of liberation Trench illustrates in
   Prudentius, who still adheres in general to the laws of prosody, but
   indulges the largest license.

   [1247] Comp. the excellent remarks of Trench, l. c. p. 26 sqq., on the
   import of rhyme. Milton, as is well known, blinded by his predilection
   for the ancient classics, calls rhyme (in the preface to "Paradise
   Lost") "the invention of a barbarous age, to set off wretched matter
   and lame metre; a thing of itself to all judicious ears trivial and of
   no true musical delight." Trench answers this biassed judgment by
   pointing to Milton's own rhymed odes and sonnets," the noblest lyrics
   which English literature possesses."

   [1248] "It is a curious thing," says J. M. Neale (The Eccles. Lat.
   Poetry of the Middle Ages, p. 214), "that, in rejecting the foreign
   laws in which Latin had so long gloried, the Christian poets were in
   fact merely reviving in an inspired form, the early melodies of
   republican Rome;--the rhythmical ballads which were the delight of the
   men that warred with the Samnites, and the Volscians, and Hannibal."

   [1249] In his Hymnus de S. Agatha, see Daniel, Thes. hymnol. tom. i. p.
   9, and Fortlage, Gesänge christl. Vorzeit, p. 365.

   [1250] The Apocalypse.

   [1251] The Gospel history.

   [1252] Thesaur. rit sacr., cited in the above-named hymnological work
   of Königsfeld and A. W. Schlegel, p. xxi., first collection.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 116. The Latin Poets and Hymns.

   The poets of this period, Prudentius excepted, are all clergymen, and
   the best are eminent theologians whose lives and labors have their more
   appropriate place in other parts of this work.

   Hilary, bishop of Poitiers (hence Pictaviensis, 368), the Athanasius of
   the West in the Arian controversies, is, according to the testimony of
   Jerome, [1253] the first hymn writer of the Latin church. During his
   exile in Phrygia and in Constantinople, he became acquainted with the
   Arian hymns and was incited by them to compose, after his return,
   orthodox hymns for the use of the Western church. He thus laid the
   foundation of Latin hymnology. He composed the beautiful morning hymn:
   "Lucis largitor splendide;" the Pentecostal hymn: "Beata nobis gaudia;"
   and, perhaps, the Latin reproduction of the famous Gloria in excelsis.
   The authorship of many of the hymns ascribed to him is doubtful,
   especially those in which the regular rhyme already appears, as in the
   Epiphany hymn:

   "Jesus refulsit omnium

   Pius redemptor gentium."

   We give as a specimen a part of the first three stanzas of his morning
   hymn, which has been often translated into German and English: [1254]


   "Lucis largitor splendide,

   "O glorious Father of the light,


   Cuius serene lumine

   From whose efflugence, calm and bright,


   Post lapsa noctis tempora

   Soon as hours of night are fled,


   Dies refusus panditur:

   The brilliance of the dawn is shed:


   "To verus mundi Lucifer,

   "Thou art the dark world's truer ray:


   Non is, qui parvi sideris,

   No radiance of that lesser day,


   Venturae lucis nuntius

   That heralds, in the morn begun,


   Augusto fulget lumine:

   The advent of our darker sun:


   "Sed toto sole clarior,

   "But, brighter than its noontide gleam,


   Lux ipse totus et dies,

   Thyself full daylight's fullest beam,


   Interna nostri pectoris

   The inmost mansions of our breast


   Illuminans praecordia."

   Thou by Thy grace illuminest."

   Ambrose, the illustrious bishop of Milan, though some-what younger (
   397), is still considered, on account of the number and value of his
   hymns, the proper father of Latin church song, and became the model for
   all successors. Such was his fame as a hymnographer that the words
   Ambrosianus and hymnus were at one time nearly synonymous. His genuine
   hymns are distinguished for strong faith, elevated but rude simplicity,
   noble dignity, deep unction, and a genuine churchly and liturgical
   spirit. The rhythm is still irregular, and of rhyme only imperfect
   beginnings appear; and in this respect they certainly fall far below
   the softer and richer melodies of the middle age, which are more
   engaging to ear and heart. They are an altar of unpolished and unhewn
   stone. They set forth the great objects of faith with apparent coldness
   that stands aloof from them in distant adoration; but the passion is
   there, though latent, and the fire of an austere enthusiasm burns
   beneath the surface. Many of them have, in addition to their poetical
   value, a historical and theological value as testimonies of orthodoxy
   against Arianism. [1255]

   Of the thirty to a hundred so-called Ambrosian hymns, [1256] however,
   only twelve, in the view of the Benedictine editors of his works, are
   genuine; the rest being more or less successful imitations by unknown
   authors. Neale reduces the number of the genuine Ambrosian hymns to
   ten, and excludes all which rhyme regularly, and those which are not
   metrical. Among the genuine are the morning hymn: "Aeterne rerum
   conditor;" [1257] the evening hymn: "Deus creator omnium;" [1258] and
   the Advent or Christmas hymn: "Veni, Redemptor gentium." This last is
   justly considered his best. It has been frequently reproduced in modern
   languages, [1259] and we add this specimen of its matter and form with
   an English version:


   "Veni, Redemptor gentium,

   "Come, Thou Redeemer of the earth,


   Ostende partum Virginis;

   Come, testify Thy Virgin Birth:


   Miretur omne saeculum:

   All lands admire--all times applaud:


   Talis partus decet Deum.

   Such is the birth that fits a God.


   "Non ex virili semine,

   "Begotten of no human will,


   Sed mystico spiramine,

   But of the Spirit, mystic still,


   Verbum Dei factum est caro,

   The Word of God, in flesh arrayed,


   Fructusque ventris floruit.

   The promised fruit to man displayed.


   "Alvus tumescit Virginis,

   "The Virgin womb that burden gained


   Claustrum pudoris permanet,

   With Virgin honor all unstained


   Vexilla virtutum micant,

   The banners there of virtues glow:


   Versatur in templo Deus.

   God in His Temple dwells below.


   "Procedit e thalamo suo,

   "Proceeding from His chamber free,


   Pudoris aulâ regiâ,

   The royal hall of chastity,


   Geminae Gigas substantiae,

   Giant of twofold substance, straight


   Alacris ut currat viam. [1260]

   His destined way He runs elate.


   "Egressus ejus a Patre,

   "From God the Father He proceeds,


   Regressus ejus ad Patrem,

   To God the Father back He speeds:


   Excursus usque ad inferos

   Proceeds--as far as very hell:


   Recursus ad sedem Dei.

   Speeds back--to light ineffable.


   "Aequalis aeterno Patri,

   "O equal to the Father, Thou!


   Carnis tropaeo [1261] cingere,

   Gird on Thy fleshly trophy (mantle) now


   Infirma nostri corporis

   The weakness of our mortal state


   Virtute firmans perpeti.

   With deathless might invigorate.


   "Praesepe jam fulget tuum,

   "Thy cradle here shall glitter bright,


   Lumenque nox spirat novum,

   And darkness breathe a newer light,


   Quod nulla nox interpolet,

   Where endless faith shall shine serene,


   Fideque jugi luceat."

   And twilight never intervene."

   By far the most celebrated hymn of the Milanese bishop, which alone
   would have made his name immortal, is the Ambrosian doxology, Te Deum
   laudamus. This, with the Gloria in excelsis, is, as already remarked,
   by far the most valuable legacy of the old Catholic church poetry; and
   will be prayed and sung with devotion in all parts of Christendom to
   the end of time. According to an old legend, Ambrose composed it on the
   baptism of St. Augustine, and conjointly with him; the two, without
   preconcert, as if from divine inspiration, alternately singing the
   words of it before the congregation. But his biographer Paulinus says
   nothing of this, and, according to later investigations, this sublime
   Christian psalm is, like the Gloria in excelsis, but a free
   reproduction and expansion of an older Greek hymn in prose, of which
   some constituents appear in the Apostolic Constitutions, and elsewhere.
   [1262]

   Ambrose introduced also an improved mode of singing in Milan, making
   wise use of the Greek symphonies and antiphonies, and popular melodies.
   This Cantus Ambrosianus, or figural song, soon supplanted the former
   mode of reciting the Psalms and prayers in monotone with musical accent
   and little modulation of the voice, and spread into most of the Western
   churches as a congregational song. It afterwards degenerated, and was
   improved and simplified by Gregory the Great, and gave place to the
   so-called Cantus Romanus, or choralis.

   Augustine, the greatest theologian among the church fathers ( 430),
   whose soul was filled with the genuine essence of poetry, is said to
   have composed the resurrection hymn: "Cum rex gloriae Christus;" the
   hymn on the glory of paradise: "Ad perennis vitae fontem melis sitivit
   arida;" and others. But he probably only furnished in the lofty
   poetical intuitions and thoughts which are scattered through his prose
   works, especially in the Confessions, the materia carminis for later
   poets, like Peter Damiani, bishop of Ostia, in the eleventh century,
   who put into flowing verse Augustine's meditations on the blessedness
   of heaven. [1263] Damasus, bishop of Rome ( 384), a friend of Jerome,
   likewise composed some few sacred songs, and is considered the author
   of the rhyme. [1264]

   Coelius Sedulius, a native of Scotland or Ireland, presbyter in the
   first half of the fifth century, composed the hymns: "Herodes, hostis
   impie," and "A solis ortus cardine," and some larger poems.

   Marcus Aurelius Clemens Prudentius ( 405), an advocate and imperial
   governor in Spain under Theodosius, devoted the last years of his life
   to religious contemplation and the writing of sacred poetry, and stands
   at the head of the more fiery and impassioned Spanish school. Bently
   calls him the Horace and Virgil of Christians, Neale, "the prince of
   primitive Christian poets." Prudentius is undoubtedly the most gifted
   and fruitful of the old Catholic poets. He was master of the classic
   measure, but admirably understood how to clothe the new ideas and
   feelings of Christianity in a new dress. His poems have been repeatedly
   edited. [1265] They are in some cases long didactic or epic productions
   in hexameters, of much historical value; [1266] in others, collections
   of epic poems, as the Cathemerinon, [1267] and Peristephanon. [1268]
   Extracts from the latter have passed into public use. The best known
   hymns of Prudentius are: "Salvete, flores martyrum," in memory of the
   massacred innocents at Bethlehem, [1269] and his grand burial hymn:
   "Jam moesta quiesce querela," which brings before us the ancient
   worship in deserts and in catacombs, and of which Herder says that no
   one can read it without feeling his heart moved by its touching tones.
   [1270]

   We must mention two more poets who form the transition from the ancient
   Catholic to mediaeval church poetry.

   Venantius Fortunatus, an Italian by birth, a friend of queen Radegunde
   (who lived apart from her husband, and presided over a cloister), the
   fashionable poet of France, and at the time of his death (about 600),
   bishop of Poitiers, wrote eleven books of poems on various subjects, an
   epic on the life of St. Martin of Tours, and a theological work in
   vindication of the Augustinian doctrine of divine grace. He was the
   first to use the rhyme with a certain degree of mastery and regularity,
   although with considerable license still, so that many of his rhymes
   are mere alliterations of consonants or repetitions of vowels. [1271]
   He first mastered the trochaic tetrameter, a measure which, with
   various modifications, subsequently became the glory of the mediaeval
   hymn. Prudentius had already used it once or twice, but Fortunatus
   first grouped it into stanzas. His best known compositions are the
   passion hymns: "Vexilla regis prodeunt," and "Pange, lingua, gloriosi
   proelium (lauream) certaminis," which, though not without some
   alterations, have passed into the Roman Breviary. [1272] The "Vexilla
   regis" is sung on Good Friday during the procession in which the
   consecrated host is carried to the altar. Both are used on the
   festivals of the Invention and the Elevation of the Cross. [1273] The
   favorite Catholic hymn to Mary: "Ave maris stella," [1274] is sometimes
   ascribed to him, but is of a much later date.

   We give as specimens his two famous passion hymns, which were composed
   about 580.

   Vexilla Regis Prodeunt. [1275]


   "Vexilla regis prodeunt,

   "The Royal Banners forward go:


   Fulget crucis mysterium,

   The Cross shines forth with mystic glow:


   Quo carne carnis conditor

   Where He in flesh, our flesh who made,


   Suspensus est patibulo. [1276]

   Our sentence bore, our ransom paid.


   "Quo vulneratus insuper

   "Where deep for us the spear was dyed,


   Mucrone diro lanceae,

   Life's torrent rushing from His side:


   Ut nos lavaret crimine

   To wash us in the precious flood,


   Manavit unda et sanguine.

   Where mingled water flowed, and blood.


   "Impleta sunt quae concinit

   "Fulfilled is all that David told


   David fideli carmine

   In true prophetic song of old:


   Dicens: in nationibus

   Amidst the nations, God, saith he,


   Regnavit a ligno Deus.

   Hath reigned and triumphed from the Tree.


   "Arbor decora et fulgida

   "O Tree of Beauty! Tree of Light!


   Ornata regis purpura,

   O Tree with royal purple dight!


   Electa digno stipite

   Elect upon whose faithful breast


   Tam sancta membra tangere.

   Those holy limbs should find their rest!


   "Beata cuius brachiis

   "On whose dear arms, so widely flung,


   Pretium pependit saeculi,

   The weight of this world's ransom hung


   Statera facta saeculi

   The price of human kind to pay,


   Praedamque tulit tartaris." [1277]

   And spoil the spoiler of his prey!"

   Pange, Lingua, Gloriosi Proelium Certaminis. [1278]


   "Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle, [1279] with completed victory
   rife,

   And above the Cross's trophy, tell the triumph of the strife;

   How the world's Redeemer conquer'd, by surrendering of His life.


   "God, his Maker, sorely grieving that the first-born Adam fell,

   When he ate the noxious apple, whose reward was death and hell,

   Noted then this wood, the ruin of the ancient wood to quell.


   "For the work of our Salvation needs would have his order so,

   And the multiform deceiver's art by art would overthrow;

   And from thence would bring the medicine whence the venom of the foe.


   "Wherefore, when the sacred fulness of the appointed time was come,

   This world's Maker left His Father, left His bright and heavenly home,

   And proceeded, God Incarnate, of the Virgin's holy womb.


   "Weeps the Infant in the manger that in Bethlehem's stable stands;

   And His limbs the Virgin Mother doth compose in swaddling bands,

   Meetly thus in linen folding of her God the feet and hands.


   "Thirty years among us dwelling, His appointed time fulfilled,

   Born for this, He meets His Passion, for that this He freely willed:

   On the Cross the Lamb is lifted, where His life-blood shall be spilled.


   "He endured the shame and spitting, vinegar, and nails, and reed;

   As His blessed side is opened, water thence and blood proceed:

   Earth, and sky, and stars, and ocean, by that flood are cleansed
   indeed.


   "Faithful Cross! above all other, one and only noble Tree!

   None in foliage, none in blossom, none in fruit thy peers may be;

   Sweetest wood and sweetest iron, sweetest weight is hung on thee!
   [1280]


   "Bend thy boughs, O Tree of Glory! thy relaxing sinews bend;

   For awhile the ancient rigor, that thy birth bestowed, suspend;

   And the King of heavenly beauty on thy bosom gently tend.


   "Thou alone wast counted worthy this world's ransom to uphold;

   For a shipwreck'd race preparing harbor, like the Ark of old:

   With the sacred blood anointed from the wounded Lamb that roll'd.


   "Laud and honor to the Father, laud and honor to the Son,

   Laud and honor to the Spirit, ever Three and ever One:

   Consubstantial, co-eternal, while unending ages run.

   Far less important as a poet is Gregory I. (590-604), the last of the
   fathers and the first of the mediaeval popes. Many hymns of doubtful
   origin have been ascribed to him and received into the Breviary. The
   best is his Sunday hymn: "Primo dierum omnium." [1281]

   The hymns are the fairest flowers of the poetry of the ancient church.
   But besides them many epic and didactic poems arose, especially in Gaul
   and Spain, which counteracted the invading flood of barbarism, and
   contributed to preserve a connection with the treasures of the classic
   culture. Juvencus, a Spanish presbyter under Constantine, composed the
   first Christian epic, a Gospel history in four books (3,226 lines), on
   the model of Virgil, but as to poetic merit never rising above
   mediocrity. Far superior to him is Prudentius ( 405); he wrote, besides
   the hymns already mentioned, several didactic, epic, and polemic poems.
   St. Pontius Paulinus, bishop of Nola ( 431), who was led by the poet
   Ausonius to the mysteries of the Muses, [1282] and a friend of
   Augustine and Jerome, is the author of some thirty poems full of devout
   spirit; the best are those on the festival of S. Felix, his patron.
   Prosper Aquitanus ( 460), layman, and friend of Augustine, wrote a
   didactic poem against the Pelagians, and several epigrams; Avitus,
   bishop of Vienne ( 523), an epic on the creation and the origin of
   evil; Arator, a court official under Justinian, afterwards a sub-deacon
   of the Roman church (about 544), a paraphrase, in heroic verse, of the
   Acts of the Apostles, in two books of about 1,800 lines. Claudianus
   Mamertus, [1283] Benedictus Paulinus, Elpidius, Orontius, and Draconti
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1253] Catal. vir. illustr. c. 100. Comp. also Isidore of Seville, De
   offic. Eccles. l. i., and Overthür, in the preface to his edition of
   the works of Hilary.

   [1254] The Latin has 8 stanzas. See Daniel, Thesaur. hymnol. tom. i. p.
   1.

   [1255] Trench sees in the Ambrosian hymns, not without reason (I. c. p.
   86), "a rocklike firmness, the old Roman stoicism transmuted and
   glorified into that nobler Christian courage, which encountered and at
   length overcame the world." Fortlage judged the same way before in a
   brilliant description of Latin hymns, l. c. p. 4 f., comp. Daniel, Cod.
   Lit. iii. p. 282 sq.

   [1256] Daniel, ii. pp. 12-115.

   [1257] The genuineness of this hymn is put beyond question by two
   quotations of the contemporary and friend of Ambrose, Augustine,
   Confess. ix. 12, and Retract. i. 12, and by the affinity of it with a
   passage in the Hexaëmeron of Ambrose, xxiv. 88, where the same thoughts
   are expressed in prose. Not so certain is the genuineness of the other
   Ambrosian morning hymns: "Aeterna coeli gloria," and "Splendor paternae
   gloriae."

   [1258] The other evening hymn: "O lux beata Trinitas," ascribed to him
   (in the Roman Breviary and in Daniel's Thesaur. i. 36), is scarcely
   from Ambrose: it has already the rhyme in the form as we find it in the
   hymns of Fortunatus.

   [1259] Especially in the beautiful German by John Frank: "Komm,
   Heidenheiland, Lösegeld," which is a free recomposition rather than a
   translation. For another English version (abridged), see "The Voice of
   Christian Life in Song," p. 97: "Redeemer of the nations, come; Pure
   offspring of the Virgin's womb, Seed of the woman, promised long, Let
   ages swell Thine advent song."

   [1260] This is an allusion to the "giants" of Gen. vi. 4, who, in the
   early church, were supposed to have been of a double substance, being
   the offspring of the "sons of God," or angels, and the "daughters of
   men," and who furnished a forced resemblance to the twofold nature of
   Christ, according to the mystical interpretation of Ps. xix. 5. Comp.
   Ambr. De incarnate Domini, c. 5.

   [1261] On the difference of reading,tropaeo, trophaeo, and stropheo or
   strophio (strophium = "cincugulum aureum cum gemmis"), see Daniel, tom.
   i. p. 14.

   [1262] "For instance, the beginning of a morning hymn, in the Codex
   Alexandrinus of the Bible, has been literally incorporated into the Te
   Deum: Kath hekasten hemeran eulogeso se,
   Per singulas dies benedicimus te, Kai aineso to onoma sou eis ton aiona
   Et laudamus nomen tuum in saeculum Kai eis ton aiona tou aionos.
   Et in saeculum saeculi. Kataxioson, kurie, kai ten hemeran tauten
   Dignare, Domine, die isto Anamartetous phulachthenai hemas.
   Sine peccato nos custodire. Comp. on this whole hymn the critical
   investigation of Daniel, l.c. vol. ii, p. 289

   [1263] This beautiful hymn, "De gloria et gaudiis Paradisi," is found
   in the appendix to the 6th volume of the Benedictine edition of the
   Opera Augustini, in Daniel's Thesaurus, tom. i. p. 116, and in Trench's
   Collection, p. 315 sqq., and elsewhere. Like all the new Jerusalem
   hymns it derives its inspiration from St. John's description in the
   concluding chapters of the Apocalypse. There is an excellent German
   translation of it by Königsfeld and an English translation by
   Wackerbarth, given in part by Neale in his Mediaeval Hymns and
   Sequences, p. 59. The whole hymn is very fine, but not quite equal to
   the long poem of Bernard of Cluny (in the twelfth century), on the
   contempt of the world, which breathes the same sweet home-sickness to
   heaven, and which Neale (p. 58) justly regards as the most lovely, in
   the same way that the Dies irae, is the most sublime, and the Stabat
   Mater the most pathetic, of mediaeval hymns. The original has not less
   than 3,000 lines; Neale gives an admirable translation of the
   concluding part, commencing "Hic breve vivitur," and a part of this
   translation: To thee, O dear, dear Country" (p. 55), is well worthy of
   a place in our hymn books. From these and similar mediaeval sources (as
   the "Urbs beata Jerusalem," &c.) is derived in part the famous English
   hymn: " O mother dear, Jerusalem!" (in 31 stanzas), which is often
   ascribed to David Dickson, a Scotch clergyman of the seventeenth
   century, and which has in turn become the mother of many English hymns
   on the new Jerusalem. (Comp. on it the monographs of H. Bonar, Edinb.
   1852, and of W. C. Prime: " O Mother dear, Jerusalem," New York,
   1865.)--To Augustineis also ascribed the hymn: "O gens beata ccelitum,"
   a picture of the blessedness of the inhabitants of heaven, and: Quid,
   tyranne! quid miraris? " an antidote for the tyranny of sin.

   [1264] Jerome(De viris ill.c. 103) says of him: "Elegans in versibus
   componendis ingenium habet, multaque et brevia metro edidit." Neale
   omits Damasus altogether. Daniel, Thes. i. pp. 8 and 9, gives only two
   of his hymns, a Hymnus de S. Andrea, and a Hymnus de S. Agatha, the
   latter with regular rhymes, commencing: "Martyris ecce dies Agathae
   Christus eam sibi qua sociat Virginis emicat eximiae,
   Et diadema duplex decorat."

   [1265] 2 E.g., by Th. Obbarius, Tub. 1845; and by Alb. Dressel, Lips.
   1860.

   [1266] The Apotheosis, a celebration of the divinity of Christ against
   its opponents (in 1,063 lines); the Harmatigenia, on the origin of sin
   (in 966 lines); the Psychomachia, on the warfare of good and evil in
   the soul (915 lines); Contra Symmachum, on idolatry, &c.

   [1267] Kathemerinon = Diurnorum (the Christian Day, as we might call
   it, after the analogy of Keble's Christian Year), hymns for the several
   hours of the day.

   [1268] Peri stephanon, concerning the crowns, fourteen hymns on as many
   martyrs who have inherited the crown of eternal life. Many of them are
   intolerably tedious and in bad taste.

   [1269] 3 De SS. Innocentibus, from the twelfth book of the
   Cathemerinon, in Prudentii Carmina, ed. Obbarius, Tüb. 1845, p. 48, in
   Daniel, tom. i. p. 124, and in Trench, p. 121.

   [1270] It is the close of the tenth Cathemerinon, and was the usual
   burial hymn of the ancient church. It has been translated into German
   by Weiss, Knapp, Puchta, Königsfeld, Bässler, Schaff (in his Deutsches
   Gesangbuch, No. 468), and others. Trench, p. 281, calls it "the
   crowning glory of the poetry of Prudentius." He never attained this
   grandeur on any other occasion. Neale, in his treatise on the Eccles.
   Latin Poetry, l.c. p. 22, gives translations of several parts of it, in
   the metre of the original, but without rhyme, commencing thus: "Each
   sorrowful mourner be silent! Fond mothers, give over your weeping! None
   grieve for those pledges as perished: This dying is life's reparation."
   Another translation by E. Caswall: "Cease, ye tearful mourners."

   [1271] Such as prodeunt--mysterium, viscera--vestigia,
   fulgida--purpura, etc.

   [1272] Daniel, Thes. i. p. 160 sqq., gives both forms: the original,
   and that of the Brev. Romanum.

   [1273] Trench has omitted both in his Collection, and admitted instead
   of them some less valuable poems of Fortunatus, De cruce Christi, and
   De passione Domini, in hexameters.

   [1274] 3 Daniel, i. p. 204.

   [1275] 274 The original text in Daniel, i. p. 160. The translation by
   Neale, from the Hymnal of the English Ecclesiological Society and
   Neale's Mediaeval Hymns p. 6. it omits the second stanza, as does the
   Roman Breviary.

   [1276] The Roman Breviary substitutes for the last two lines: Qua vita
   mortem pertulit Et morte vitam protulit."

   [1277] Brev. Rom.: "Tulitque praedam tartari."

   [1278] See the original, which is not rhymed, in Daniel, i. p. 163
   sqq., and in somewhat different form in the Roman Breviary. The
   masterly English translation in, the metre of the original is Neale's,
   l.c. p. 237 sq., and in his Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences, p. 1.
   Another excellent English version by E. Caswell commences:
   Sing, my tongue, the Saviour's glory; tell His triumph far and wide."

   [1279] Proelium certaminis, which the Roman Breviary spoiled by
   substituting lauream. The poet describes the glory of the struggle
   itself rather than the glory of its termination, as is plain from the
   conclusion of the verse.

   [1280] The Latin of this stanza is a jewel: Crux fidelis, inter omnes
   arbor una nobilis Nulla talem silva profert fronde, flore, germine:
   Dulce lignum, dulci clavo, dulce pondus sustinens." (In the Roman
   Breviary: "Dulce ferrum, dulce lignum, dulce pondus sustinent.")

   [1281] See Daniel's Cod. i. p. 175 sqq. For au excellent English
   version of the hymn above alluded to, see Neale, l. c. p. 233.

   [1282] Ausonius yielded the palm to his pupil when he wrote of the
   verses of Paulinus: "Cedimus ingenio, quantum praecedimus aevo:
   Assurget Musae nostra camoena tuae."

   [1283] Not to be confounded with Claudius Claudianus, of Alexandria,
   the most gifted Latin poet at the end of the fourth and beginning of
   the fifth century. The Christian Idyls, Epistles, and Epigrams ascribed
   to him, were probably the work of Claudianus Mamertus, of Vienne (Comp.
   H. Thompson's Manual of Rom. Lit. p. 204, and J. J. Brunet's Manual du
   libraire, tom. iii. p. 1351 of the 5th ed. Par. 1862). For Claudius
   Claudianus was a heathen, according to the express testimony of Paulus
   Orosiusand of Augustine(De Civit. Dei, v. p. 26: "Poeta Claudianus,
   quamvis a Christi nomine alienus," &c.), and in one of his own
   epigrams, In Jacobum, magistrum equitum, shows his contempt of the
   Christian religion.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER IX.

   THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECUMENICAL ORTHODOXY.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 117. General Observations. Doctrinal Importance of the Period.
   Influence of the Ancient Philosophy.

   The Nicene and Chalcedonian age is the period of the formation and
   ecclesiastical settlement of the ecumenical orthodoxy; that is, the
   doctrines of the holy trinity and of the incarnation and the
   divine-human person of Christ, in which the Greek, Latin, and
   evangelical churches to this day in their symbolical books agree, in
   opposition to the heresies of Arianism and Apollinarianism,
   Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Besides these trinitarian and
   christological doctrines, anthropology also, and soteriology,
   particularly the doctrines of sin and grace, in opposition to
   Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism were developed and brought to a
   relative settlement; only, however, in the Latin church, for the Greek
   took very little part in the Pelagian controversy.

   The fundamental nature of these doctrines, the greatness of the church
   fathers who were occupied with them, and the importance of the result,
   give this period the first place after the apostolic in the history of
   theology. In no period, excepting the Reformation of the sixteenth
   century, have there been so momentous and earnest controversies in
   doctrine, and so lively an interest in them. The church was now in
   possession of the ancient philosophy and learning of the Roman empire,
   and applied them to the unfolding and vindication of the Christian
   truth. In the lead of these controversies stood church teachers of
   imposing talents and energetic piety, not mere book men, but venerable
   theological characters, men all of a piece, as great in acting and
   suffering as in thinking. To them theology was a sacred business of
   heart and life, [1284] and upon them we may pass the judgment of
   Eusebius respecting Origen: "Their life was as their word, and their
   word was as their life."

   The theological controversies absorbed the intellectual activity of
   that time, and shook the foundations of the church and the empire. With
   the purest zeal for truth were mingled much of the odium and rabies
   theologorum, and the whole host of theological passions; which are the
   deepest and most bitter of passions, because religion is concerned with
   eternal interests.

   The leading personages in these controversies were of course bishops
   and priests. By their side fought the monks, as a standing army, with
   fanatical zeal for the victory of orthodoxy, or not seldom in behalf
   even of heresy. Emperors and civil officers also mixed in the business
   of theology, but for the most part to the prejudice of its free,
   internal development; for they imparted to all theological questions a
   political character, and entangled them with the cabals of court and
   the secular interests of the day. In Constantinople, during the Arian
   controversy, all classes, even mechanics, bankers, frippers, market
   women, and runaway slaves took lively part in the questions of
   Homousion and sub-ordination, of the begotten and the unbegotten.
   [1285]

   The speculative mind of the Eastern church was combined with a deep
   religious earnestness and a certain mysticism, and at the same time
   with the Grecian curiosity and disputatiousness, which afterwards
   rather injured than promoted her inward life. Gregory Nazianzen, who
   lived in Constantinople in the midst of the Arian wars, describes the
   division and hostility which this polemic spirit introduced between
   parents and children, husbands and wives, old and young, masters and
   slaves, priests and people. "It has gone so far that the whole market
   resounds with the discourses of heretics, every banquet is corrupted by
   this babbling even to nausea, every merrymaking is transformed into a
   mourning, and every funeral solemnity is almost alleviated by this
   brawling as a still greater evil; even the chambers of women, the
   nurseries of simplicity, are disturbed thereby, and the flowers of
   modesty are crushed by this precocious practice of dispute." [1286]
   Chrysostom, like Melanchthon at a later day, had much to suffer from
   the theological pugnacity of his times.

   The history of the Nicene age shows clearly that the church of God
   carries the heavenly treasure in earthly vessels. The Reformation of
   the sixteenth century was likewise in fact an incessant war, in which
   impure personal and political motives of every kind had play, and even
   the best men often violated the apostolic injunction to speak the truth
   in love. But we must not forget that the passionate and intolerant
   dogmatism of that time was based upon deep moral earnestness and strong
   faith, and so far forth stands vastly above the tolerance of
   indifferentism, which lightly plays with the truth or not rarely
   strikes out in most vehement intolerance against the faith. (Remember
   the first French revolution.) The overruling of divine Providence in
   the midst of these wild conflicts is unmistakable, and the victory of
   the truth appears the greater for the violence of error. God uses all
   sorts of men for his instruments, and brings evil passions as well as
   good into his service. The Spirit of truth guided the church through
   the rush and the din of contending parties, and always triumphed over
   error in the end.

   The ecumenical councils were the open battle-fields, upon which the
   victory of orthodoxy was decided. The doctrinal decrees of these
   councils contain the results of the most profound discussions
   respecting the Trinity and the person of Christ; and the Church to this
   day has not gone essentially beyond those decisions.

   The Greek church wrought out Theology and Christology, while the Latin
   church devoted itself to Anthropology and Soteriology. The one, true to
   the genius of the Greek nationality, was predominantly speculative,
   dialectical, impulsive, and restless; the other, in keeping with the
   Roman character, was practical, traditional, uniform, consistent, and
   steady. The former followed the stimulation of Origen and the
   Alexandrian school; the latter received its impulse from Tertullian and
   Cyprian, and reached its theological height in Jerome and Augustine.
   The speculative inclination of the Greek church appeared even in its
   sermons, which not rarely treated of the number of worlds, the idea of
   matter, the different classes of higher spirits, the relation of the
   three hypostases in the Godhead, and similar abstruse questions. The
   Latin church also, however, had a deep spirit of investigation (as we
   see in Tertullian and Augustine), took an active part in the
   trinitarian and christological controversies of the East, and decided
   the victory of orthodoxy by the weight of its authority. The Greek
   church almost exhausted its productive force in those great struggles,
   proved indifferent to the deeper conception of sin and grace, as
   developed by Augustine, and after the council of Chalcedon degenerated
   theologically into scholastic formalism and idle refinements.

   The fourth and fifth centuries are the flourishing, classical period of
   the patristic theology and of the Christian Graeco-Roman civilization.
   In the second half of the fifth century the West Roman empire, with
   these literary treasures, went down amidst the storms of the great
   migration, to take a new and higher sweep in the Germano-Roman form
   under Charlemagne. In the Eastern empire scholarship was better
   maintained, and a certain connection with antiquity was preserved
   through the medium of the Greek language. But as the Greek church had
   no middle age, so it has had no Protestant Reformation.

   The prevailing philosophy of the fathers was the Platonic, so far as it
   was compatible with the Christian spirit. The speculative theologians
   of the East, especially those of the school of Origen, and in the West,
   Ambrose and pre-eminently Augustine, were moulded by the Platonic
   idealism.

   A remarkable combination of Platonism with Christianity, to the injury
   of the latter, appears in the system of mystic symbolism in the
   pseudo-Dionysian books, which cannot have been composed before the
   fifth century, though they were falsely ascribed to the Areopagite of
   the book of Acts (xvii. 34), and proceeded from the later school of
   New-Platonism, as represented by Proclus of Athens ( 485). The
   fundamental idea of these Dionysian writings (on the celestial
   hierarchy; on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; on the divine names; on
   mystic theology; together with ten letters) is a double hierarchy, one
   in heaven and one on earth, each consisting of three triads, which
   mediates between man and the ineffable, transcendent hyper-essential
   divinity. This idea is a remnant of the aristocratic spirit of ancient
   heathenism, and forms the connecting link with the hierarchical
   organization of the church, and explains the great importance and
   popularity which the pseudo-Dionysian system acquired, especially in
   the mystic theology of the middle ages. [1287]

   In Synesius of Cyrene also the Platonism outweighs the Christianity. He
   was an enthusiastic pupil of Hypatia, the famous female philosopher at
   Alexandria, and in 410 was called to the bishopric of Ptolemais, the
   capital of Pentapolis. Before taking orders he frankly declared that he
   could not forsake his philosophical opinions, although he would in
   public accommodate himself to the popular belief. Theophilus of
   Alexandria, the same who was one of the chief persecutors of the
   admirers of Origen, the father of Christian Platonism, accepted this
   doubtful theory of accommodation. Synesius was made bishop, but often
   regretted that he exchanged his favorite studies for the responsible
   and onerous duties of the bishopric. In his hymns he fuses the
   Christian doctrine of the Trinity with the Platonic idea of God, and
   the Saviour with the divine Helios, whose daily setting and rising was
   to him a type of Christ's descent into Hades and ascension to heaven.
   The desire of the soul to be freed from the chains of matter, takes the
   place of the sorrow for sin and the longing after salvation. [1288]

   As soon as theology assumed a scholastic character and began to deal
   more in dialectic forms than in living ideas, the philosophy of
   Aristotle rose to favor and influence, and from John Philoponus, a.d.
   550, throughout the middle age to the Protestant Reformation, kept the
   lead in the Catholic church. It was the philosophy of scholasticism,
   while mysticism sympathized rather with the Platonic system.

   The influence of the two great philosophies upon theology was
   beneficial or injurious, according as the principle of Christianity was
   the governing or the governed factor. Both systems are theistic (at
   bottom monotheistic), and favorable to the spirit of earnest and
   profound speculation. Platonism, with its ideal, poetic views,
   stimulates, fertilizes, inspires and elevates the reason and
   imagination, but also easily leads into the errors of gnosticism and
   the twilight of mysticism. Aristotelianism, with its sober realism and
   sharp logical distinctions, is a good discipline for the understanding,
   a school of dialectic practice, and a help to logical, systematic,
   methodical treatment, but may also induce a barren formalism. The truth
   is, Christianity itself is the highest philosophy, as faith is the
   highest reason; and she makes successive philosophies, as well as the
   arts and the sciences, tributary to herself, on the Pauline principle
   that "all things are hers." [1289]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1284] Or, as Gregory Nazianzen says of the true theologian,
   contemplation was a prelude to action, and action a prelude to
   contemplation, praxis(a religious walk) epibasis theorias(actio gradus
   est ad contemplationem), Oratio xx. 12 (ed. Bened. Paris. tom. i. p.
   383).

   [1285] So Gregory of Nyssa (not Nazianzen, as J. H. Kurtz, wrongly
   quoting from Neander, has it in his large K. Gesch. i. ii. p. 99)
   relates from his own observation: Orat. de Deitate Filii et Spiritus S.
   (Opera ii. p. 898, ed. Paris. of 1615). He compares his contemporaries
   in this respect with the Athenians, who are always wishing to hear some
   new thing.

   [1286] Orat. xxvii. 2 (Opera, tom. i. p. 488). Comp. Orat. xxxii. (tom.
   i. p. 581); Carmen de vita sua, vers. 1210 sqq. (tom. ii. p. 737 sq.).

   [1287] Comp. Engelhardt: Die angeblichen Schriften des Areop. Dionysius
   übersetzt und erklärt, 1823, 2 Parts; Ritter: Geschichte der christl.
   Philosophie, Bd. ii. p. 515; Baur: Geschichte der Lehre von der
   Dreieinigkeit, ii. 207 f., and his Geschichte der Kirche, from the
   fourth to the sixth century, p. 59 ff.; Joh. Huber: Die Philosophie der
   Kirchenväter, pp. 327-341; and an article of K. Vogt, in Herzog's
   Encycl. iii. p. 412 ff.

   [1288] Comp. Clausen: De Synesio philosopho, Hafn. 1831; Huber: Philos.
   der Kirchenväter, pp. 315-321; Baur: Church Hist. from the fourth to
   the sixth century, p. 52 ff., and W. Möllerin Herzog's Encycl. vol. xv.
   p. 335 ff.

   [1289] Concerning the influence of philosophy on the church fathers,
   comp. Ritter'sGeschichte der christl. Philosophie; Ackermann, and Baur:
   Ueber das Christliche im Platonismus; Huber'sPhilosophie der
   Kirchenväter (Munich, 1859); NEANDER'S Dogmengeschichte, i p. 59 sqq.;
   Archer Butler's Lectures on Ancient Philosophy; Shedd'sHistory of
   Christian Doctrine, vol. i. ch. 1 (Philosophical Influences in the
   Ancient Church); Alb. Stöckl: Geschichte der Philosophie des
   Mittelalters, Mainz, 1865, 2 Bde.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 118. Sources of Theology. Scripture and Tradition.

   Comp. the literature in vol. i. § 75 and § 76. Also: Eusebius: Hist.
   Eccl. iii. 3; vi. 25 (on the form of the canon in the Nicene age);
   Leander van Ess (R.C.): Chrysostomus oder Stimmen der Kirchenväter
   für's Bibellesen. Darmstadt, 1824.

   Vincentius Lirinensis ( about 450): Commonitorium pro cathol. fidei
   antiquitate et universitate Adv. profanas omnium haer. novitates;
   frequent editions, e.g. by Baluzius (1663 and 1684), Gallandi, Coster,
   Kluepfel (with prolegom. and notes), Viennae, 1809, and by Herzog,
   Vratisl. 1839; also in connection with the Opera Hilarii Arelatensis,
   Rom. 1731, and the Opera Salviani, Par. 1669, and in Migne's
   Patrolegis, vol. 50, p. 626 sqq.

   The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the
   rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period,
   except that it is further developed in particulars. [1290] The divine
   Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings;
   and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the
   apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects
   together form the one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are
   vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ;
   with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition
   determines the canon, furnishes the key to the true interpretation of
   the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. The relation
   of the two in the mind of the ancient church may be illustrated by the
   relation between the supreme law of a country (such as the Roman law,
   the Code Napoleon, the common law of England, the Constitution of the
   United States) and the courts which expound the law, and decide between
   conflicting interpretations. Athanasius, for example, "the father of
   orthodoxy," always bases his conclusions upon Scripture, and appeals to
   the authority of tradition only in proof that he rightly understands
   and expounds the sacred books. The catholic faith, says he, is that
   which the Lord gave, the apostles preached, and the fathers have
   preserved; upon this the church is founded, and he who departs from
   this faith can no longer be called a Christian. [1291]

   The sum of doctrinal tradition was contained in what is called the
   Apostles' Creed, which at first bore various forms, but after the
   beginning of the fourth century assumed the Roman form now commonly
   used. In the Greek church its place was supplied after the year 325 by
   the Nicene Creed, which more fully expresses the doctrine of the deity
   of Christ. Neither of these symbols goes beyond the substance of the
   teaching of the apostles; neither contains any doctrine specifically
   Greek or Roman.

   The old catholic doctrine of Scripture and tradition, therefore, nearly
   as it approaches the Roman, must not be entirely confounded with it. It
   makes the two identical as to substance, while the Roman church rests
   upon tradition for many doctrines and usages, like the doctrines of the
   seven sacraments, of the mass, of purgatory, of the papacy, and of the
   immaculate conception, which have no foundation in Scripture. Against
   this the evangelical church protests, and asserts the perfection and
   sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the record of divine revelation;
   while it does not deny the value of tradition, or of the consciousness
   of the church, in the interpretation of Scripture, and regulates public
   teaching by symbolical books. In the Protestant view tradition is not
   coordinate with Scripture, but subordinate to it, and its value depends
   on its agreement with the Scriptures. The Scriptures alone are the
   norma fidei; the church doctrine is only the norma doctrinae.
   Protestantism gives much more play to private judgment and free
   investigation in the interpretation of the Scriptures, than the Roman
   or even the Nicene church. [1292]

   I. In respect to the Holy Scriptures:

   At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the
   extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be
   acknowledged as divine and authoritative.

   The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while
   the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in
   a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, [1293]
   and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal
   (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have
   great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and
   the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they
   cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by
   Christ or the apostles. [1294]

   Of the New Testament, in the time of Eusebius, the four Gospels, the
   Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the
   first Epistle of Peter, were universally recognized as canonical,
   [1295] while the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second and third Epistles
   of John, the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of James, and the
   Epistle of Jude were by many disputed as to their apostolic origin, and
   the book of Revelation was doubted by reason of its contents. [1296]
   This indecision in reference to the Old Testament Apocrypha prevailed
   still longer in the Eastern church; but by the middle of the fourth
   century the seven disputed books of the New Testament were universally
   acknowledged, and they are included in the lists of the canonical books
   given by Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril
   of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius; except that in some cases the Apocalypse
   is omitted.

   In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the
   end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered,
   however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and
   more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon
   of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the
   disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in
   some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as
   deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority. The council
   of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the
   sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine,
   who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures,
   including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the
   reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the
   Martyrs on their memorial days. These two African councils, with
   Augustine, [1297] give forty-four books as the canonical books of the
   Old Testament, in the following order: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
   Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (the
   two of Samuel and the two of Kings), two books of Paralipomena
   (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms, five books of Solomon, the twelve minor
   Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther,
   two books of Ezra, two books of Maccabees. The New Testament canon is
   the same as ours.

   This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to
   ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when
   Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of
   biblical books.

   This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was
   sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.

   Protestantism retained the New Testament canon of the Roman church,
   [1298] but, in accordance with the orthodox Jewish and the primitive
   Christian view, excluded the Apocrypha from the Old. [1299]

   The most eminent of the church fathers speak in the strongest terms of
   the full inspiration and the infallible authority of the holy
   Scriptures, and commend the diligent reading of them even to the laity.
   Especially Chrysostom. The want of general education, however, and the
   enormous cost of books, left the people for the most part dependent on
   the mere hearing of the word of God in public worship; and the free
   private study of the Bible was repressed by the prevailing Spirit of
   the hierarchy. No prohibition, indeed, was yet laid upon the reading of
   the Bible; but the presumption that it was a book of the priests and
   monks already existed. It remained for a much later period, by the
   invention of printing, the free spirit of Protestantism, and the
   introduction of popular schools, to make the Bible properly a people's
   book, as it was originally designed to be; and to disseminate it by
   Bible societies, which now print and circulate more copies of it in one
   year, than were made in the whole middle age, or even in the fifteen
   centuries before the Reformation.

   The oldest manuscripts of the Bible now extant date no further back
   than the fourth century, are very few, and abound in unessential errors
   and omissions of every kind; and the problem of a critical restoration
   of the original text is not yet satisfactorily solved, nor can it be
   more than approximately solved in the absence of the original writings
   of the apostles.

   The oldest and most important manuscripts in uncial letters are the
   Sinaitic (first discovered by Tischendorf in 1859, and published in
   1862), the Vatican (in Rome, defective), the Alexandrian (in London);
   then the much mutilated codex of Ephraim Syrus in Paris, and the
   incomplete codex of Cambridge. From these and a few other uncial
   codices the oldest attainable text must be mainly gathered. Secondary
   sources are quotations in the fathers, the earliest versions, Stich as
   the Syriac Peshito and the Latin Vulgate, and the later manuscripts.
   [1300]

   The faith which rests not upon the letter, but upon the living spirit
   of Christianity, is led into no error by the defects of the manuscripts
   and ancient and modern versions of the Bible, but only excited to new
   and deeper study.

   The spread of the church among all the nations of the Roman empire, and
   even among the barbarians on its borders, brought with it the necessity
   of translating the Scriptures into various tongues. The most important
   of these versions, and the one most used, is the Latin Vulgate, which
   was made by the learned Jerome on the basis of the older Itala, and
   which afterwards, notwithstanding its many errors, was placed by the
   Roman church on a level with the original itself. The knowledge of
   Hebrew among the fathers was very rare; the Septuagint was considered
   sufficient, and even the knowledge of Greek diminished steadily in the
   Latin church after the invasion of the barbarians and the schism with
   the East, so that the Bible in its original languages became a sealed
   book, and remained such until the revival of learning in the fifteenth
   century.

   In the interpretation of the Scriptures the system of allegorical
   exposition and imposition was in high repute, and often degenerated
   into the most arbitrary conceits, especially in the Alexandrian school,
   to which most of the great dogmatic theologians of the Nicene age
   belonged. In opposition to this system the Antiochian school, founded
   by Lucian ( 311), and represented by Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of
   Mopsuestia, and best by John Chrysostom and Theodoret, advocated a
   soberer grammatical and historical exegesis, and made a sharper
   distinction between the human and the divine elements in the
   Scriptures. Theodore thereby incurred the suspicion and subsequently
   even the condemnation of the Greek church.

   Among the Latin fathers a similar difference in the interpretation of
   Scripture appears between the discerning depth and lively play of
   Augustine and the grammatical and archaeological scholarship and
   dogmatical superficiality of Jerome.

   II. The Holy Scriptures were universally accepted as the supreme
   authority and infallible rule of faith. But as the Scriptures
   themselves were variously interpreted, and were claimed by the heretics
   for their views, the fathers of our period, like Irenaeus and
   Tertullian before them, had recourse at the same time to Tradition, as
   preserved from the apostles through the unbroken succession of the
   bishops. With them the Scriptures are the supreme law; the combined
   wisdom and piety of the catholic church, the organic body of the
   faithful, is the judge which decides the true sense of the law. For to
   be understood the Bible must be explained, either by private judgment
   or by the universal faith of Christendom.

   Strictly speaking, the Holy Ghost, who is the author, is also the only
   infallible interpreter of the Scriptures. But it was held that the Holy
   Ghost is given only to the orthodox church not to heretical and
   schismatic sects, and that he expresses himself through assembled
   orthodox bishops and universal councils in the clearest and most
   authoritative way. "The heretics," says Hilary, "all cite the
   Scriptures, but without the sense of the Scriptures; for those who are
   outside the church can have no understanding of the, word of God." They
   imagine they follow the Scriptures, while in truth they follow their
   own conceits, which they put into the Scriptures instead of drawing
   their thoughts from them.

   Even Augustine, who of all the fathers stands nearest to evangelical
   Protestantism, on this point advocates the catholic principle in the
   celebrated maxim which he urges against the Manichaeans: "I would not
   believe the gospel, if I were not compelled by the authority of the
   universal church." But he immediately adds: "God forbid that I should
   not believe the gospel." [1301]

   But there are different traditions; not to speak of various
   interpretations of the catholic tradition. Hence the need of a
   criterion of true and false tradition. The semi-Pelagian divine,
   Vincentius, a monk and priest in the South-Gallic cloister of Lirinum (
   450), [1302] otherwise little known, propounded the maxim which formed
   an epoch in this matter, and has since remained the standard in the
   Roman church: We must hold "what has been everywhere, always, and by
   all believed." [1303] Here we have a threefold test of the
   ecclesiastical orthodoxy: Catholicity of place, of time, and of number;
   or ubiquity, antiquity, and universal consent; [1304] in other words,
   an article of faith must be traced up to the apostles, and be found in
   all Christian countries, and among all believers. But this principle
   can be applied only to a few fundamental articles of revealed religion,
   not to any of the specifically Romish dogmas, and, to have any
   reasonable meaning, must be reduced to a mere principle of majority. In
   regard to the consensus omnium, which properly includes both the
   others, Vincentius himself makes this limitation, by defining the
   condition as a concurrence of the majority of the clergy. [1305] To the
   voice of the people neither he nor the whole Roman system, in matters
   of faith, pays the slightest regard. In many important doctrines,
   however, there is not even a consensus patrum, as in the doctrine of
   free will, of predestination, of the atonement. A certain freedom of
   divergent private opinions is the indispensable condition of all
   progress of thought, and precedes the ecclesiastical settlement of
   every article of faith. Even Vincentius expressly asserts a steady
   advance of the church in the knowledge of the truth, though of course
   in harmony with the previous steps, as a man or a tree remains
   identical through the various stages of growth. [1306]

   Vincentius is thoroughly Catholic in the spirit and tendency of his
   work, and has not the most remote conception of the free Protestant
   study of the Scriptures. But on the other hand he would have as little
   toleration for new dogmas. He wished to make tradition not an
   independent source of knowledge and rule of faith by the side of the
   Holy Scriptures, but only to have it acknowledged as the true
   interpreter of Scripture, and as a bar to heretical abuse. The
   criterion of the antiquity of a doctrine, which he required, involves
   apostolicity, hence agreement with the spirit and substance of the New
   Testament. The church, says he, as the solicitous guardian of that
   which is intrusted to her, changes, diminishes, increases nothing. Her
   sole effort is to shape, or confirm, or preserve the old. Innovation is
   the business of heretics not of orthodox believers. The canon of
   Scripture is complete in itself, and more than sufficient. [1307] But
   since all heretics appeal to it, the authority of the church must be
   called in as the rule of interpretation, and in this we must follow
   universality, antiquity, and consent. [1308] It is the custom of the
   Catholics, says he in the same work, to prove the true faith in two
   ways: first by the authority of the holy Scriptures, then by the
   tradition of the Catholic church; not because the canon alone is not of
   itself sufficient for all things, but on account of the many
   conflicting interpretations and perversions of the Scriptures. [1309]

   In the same spirit says pope Leo I.: "It is not permitted to depart
   even in one word from the doctrine of the Evangelists and the Apostles,
   nor to think otherwise concerning the Holy Scriptures, than the blessed
   apostles and our fathers learned and taught." [1310]

   The catholic principle of tradition became more and more confirmed, as
   the authority of the fathers and councils increased and the learned
   study of the Holy Scriptures declined; and tradition gradually set
   itself in practice on a level with Scripture, and even above it. It
   fettered free investigation, and promoted a rigid, stationary and
   intolerant orthodoxy, which condemned men like Origen and Tertullian as
   heretics. But on the other hand the principle of tradition
   unquestionably exerted a wholesome conservative power, and saved the
   substance of the ancient church doctrine from the obscuring and
   confusing influence of the pagan barbarism which deluged Christendom.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1290] Comp. vol. i. § 75 and 76.

   [1291] Ad Serap. Ep. i., cap. 28 (Opera, tom. i. pars ii. p. 676):
   Idomen ... ten tes arches paradosin kai didaskalian kai pistin tes
   katholikes ekklesias hen ho men kurios edoken, hoi de apostoloi
   ekeruxan, kai hoi pateres ephulaxan. Voigt (Die Lehre des Athanasius,
   &c. p. 13 ff.) makes Athanasius even the representative of the formal
   principle of Protestantism, the supreme authority, sufficiency, and
   self-interpreting character of the Scriptures; while Möhler endeavors
   to place him on the Roman side. Both are biassed, and violate history
   by their preconceptions.

   [1292] On this point compare the relevant sections in the works on
   Symbolic and Polemic Theology, and Schaff's Principle of Protestantism,
   1845.

   [1293] Biblia anaginoskomena (libri ecclesiastici), in distinction from
   kanonikaor kanonizomenaon the one hand, and apokruphaon the other. So
   Athanasius.

   [1294] Heb. xi. 35 ff. probably alludes, indeed, to 2 Macc. vi. ff.;
   but between a historical allusion and a corroborative citation with the
   solemn he graphe legeithere is a wide difference.

   [1295] Hence called homologoumena.

   [1296] Hence called antilegomena, which, however, is by no means to be
   confounded with apokruphaand notha. There are no apocrypha, properly
   speaking, in the New Testament. The apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and
   Apocalypses in every case differ greatly from the apostolic, and were
   never received into the canon. The idea of apocrypha in the Old
   Testament is innocent, and is applied to later Jewish writings, the
   origin of which is not accurately known, but the contents of which are
   useful and edifying.

   [1297] De doctr. Christ. l. ii. c. 8.

   [1298] The well-known doubts of Luther respecting some of the
   antilegomena, especially the Epistle of James, the Epistle to the
   Hebrews, and the Revelation, are mere private opinions, which have
   latterly been reasserted by individual Lutheran divines, like Philippi
   and Kahnis, but have had no influence upon the church doctrine.

   [1299] The more particular history of the canon belongs to historical
   and critical Introduction to the Bible. Besides the relevant sections
   in works of this sort, and in Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel
   History, and Kirchhofer'sQuellensammlung (1844), comp. the following
   special treatises: Thiersch: Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts
   für die Kritik der N. T'tlichen Schriften, 1845; Credner. Zur
   Geschichte des Kanons, 1847; Oehler: Kanon des A. Ts. in Herzog's
   Encyklopädie, vol. vii. pp. 243-270; Landerer: Kanon des Neuen
   Testaments, ibid. pp. 270-303; also an extended article: Canon of
   Scripture, in W. Smith'sDictionary of the Bible (London and Boston,
   1860), vol. i. pp. 250-268.

   [1300] Full information on this subject may be found in the
   Introductions to the New Testament, and in the Prolegomena of the
   critical editions of the New Testament, among which the editions of
   Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford are the most important.
   Comp. particularly the eighth large edition of Tischendorf, begun in
   1865, and diligently employing all existing critical helps.

   [1301] "Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae
   commoveret autoritas .... Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam. Illi
   enim credens, non invenio quomodo possim etiam tibi [Manichaeus]
   credere. Apostolorum enim nomina, quae ibi leguntur, non inter se
   continent nomen Manichaei." Contra Epist. Manichaei, quam vocant
   fundamenti, cap. 6 (ed. Bened. tom. viii. p. 154). His object in this
   argument is to show that the Manichaeans have no right in the
   Scriptures, that the Catholic church is the legitimate owner and
   interpreter of the Bible. But it is an abuse to press this argument at
   once into the service of Rome as is so often done. Between the
   controversy of the old Catholic church with Manichaeism, and the
   controversy of Romanism with Protestantism, there is an immense
   difference.

   [1302] Lerinum or Lirinum (now St. Honorat) is one of the group of
   small islands in the Mediterranean which formerly belonged to Roman
   Gaul, afterwards to France. In the fifth century it was a seminary of
   learned monks and priests for France, as Faustus Regiensis, Hilarius
   Arelatensis, Salvianus, and others.

   [1303] Commonit. cap. 2 (in Migne'sPatrolog. vol. 50, p. 640): "In ipsa
   item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod
   ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibuscreditum est." The Commonitorium
   was composed, as we learn from the preface and from ch. 42, about three
   years after the ecumenical council of Ephesus, therefore about 434,
   under the false name of Peregrinus, as a help to the memory of the
   author that he might have the main points of ecclesiastical tradition
   constantly at hand against the heretics. Baronius calls it "opus certe
   aureum," and Bellarmin "parvum mole et virtute maximum." It consisted
   originally of two books, but the manuscript of the second book was
   stolen from the author, who then added a brief summary of both books at
   the close of the first (c. 41-43). Vossius, Cardinal Norisius (Historia
   Pelagiana, I. ii. c. 11), Natalis Alexander, Hefele, and Schmidt give
   this work a polemic aim against strict Augustinism, for which certainly
   the Greek church cannot be claimed, so that the three criteria of
   catholicity are wanting. There is pretty strong evidence in the book
   itself that Vincentius belonged to the semi-Pelagian school which arose
   in Marseille and Lirinum. He was probably also the author of the
   Vincentianae objectiones against Augustine's doctrine of
   predestination. Comp. on Vincentius, Tillemont's Mémoires, tom. xv. pp.
   143-147; the art. Vincentius v. L. by H. Schmidt in Herzog's Encykl.
   vol. xvii. pp. 211-217; and an essay of C. J. Hefele (R.C.), in his
   Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Archäologie und Liturgik, vol. i. p.
   146 ff. (Tüb. 1864).

   [1304] As Vincentius expresses himself in the succeeding sentence:
   Universitas, antiquitas, consensio. Comp. c. 27.

   [1305] "Consensio omnium vel certe paene omnium sacerdotum pariter et
   magistrorum," etc. Common. c. 2 (in Migne, p. 640).

   [1306] Cap 23 (in Migne, vol 50, p. 667 sqq.).

   [1307] Cap. 2: "Quum sit perfectus Scripturarum Canon et sibi ad omnia
   satis superque sufficiat," etc. Cap. 29.

   [1308] "Hoc facere curabant ... ut divinum canonem secundum universalis
   ecclesiae traditiones et juxta catholici dogmatis regulas
   interpretentur, in qua item catholica et apostolica ecclesia sequantur
   necesse est universitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem." Commonit. cap.
   27 (in Migne, vol. 50, p. 674). Comp. c. 2-4.

   [1309] Cap. 29 (in Migne, vol. 50, p. 677): "Non quia canon solus non
   sibi ad universa sufficiat, sed quia verba divina, pro suo plerique
   arbitratu interpretantes, varias opiniones erroresque concipiant," etc.

   [1310] Epist. 82 ad Episc. Marcianum Aug. (Opera, tom. i. p. 1044, ed.
   Ballerini, and in Migne, liv. p. 918): "Quum ab evangelica
   apostolicaque doctrina ne uno quidem verbo liceat dissidere, aut aliter
   de Scripturis divinis sapere quam beati apostoli et patres nostri
   didicerunt atque docuerunt," etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 119. The Arian Controversy down to the Council of Nicaea, 318-325.

   I. - Trinitarian Controversies.

   GENERAL LITERATURE OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSIES.

   I. Sources: On the orthodox side most of the fathers of the fourth
   century; especially the dogmatic and polemic works of Athanasius
   (Orationes c. Arianos; De decretis Nicaenae Synodi; De sententia
   Dionysii; Apologia c. Arianos; Apologia de fuga sua; Historia
   Arianorum, etc., all in tom. i. pars i. ii. of the Bened. ed.), Basil
   (Adv. Eunomium), Gregory Nazianzen (Orationes theologicae), Gregory Of
   Nyssa (Contra Eunom.), Epiphanius (Ancoratus), Hilary (De Trinitate),
   Ambrose (De Fide), Augustine (De Trinitate, and Contra Maximinimum
   Arianum), Rufinus, and the Greek church historians.

   On the heretical side: The fragments of the writings of Arius (Qavleia,
   and two Epistolae to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of
   Alexandria), preserved in quotations in Athanasius, Epiphanius,
   Socrates, and Theodoret; comp. Fabricius: Biblioth. gr. viii. p. 309.
   Fragmenta Arianorum about 388 in Angelo Mai: Scriptorum veterum nova
   collect. Rom. 1828, vol. iii. The fragments of the Church History of
   the Arian Philostorgius, a.d. 350-425.

   II. Works: Tillemont (R.C.): Mémoires, etc. tom. vi. pp. 239-825, ed.
   Paris. 1699, and ed. Ven. (the external history chiefly). Dionysius
   Petavius (Jesuit, 1652): De theologicis dogmatibus, tom. ii., which
   treats of the divine Trinity in eight books; and in part toms. iv. and
   v. which treat in sixteen books of the Incarnation of the Word. This is
   still, though incomplete, the most learned work of the Roman church in
   the History of Doctrines; it first appeared at Paris, 1644-'50, in five
   volumes fol., then at Amsterdam, 1700 (in 6 vols.), and at Venice, 1757
   (ed. Zacharia), and has been last edited by Passaglia and Schrader in
   Rome, 1857. J. M. Travasa (R.C.): Storia critica della vita di Ario.
   Ven. 1746. S. J. Maimburg: Histoire de l'Arianisme. Par. 1675. John
   Pearson (bishop of Chester, 1686): An Exposition of the Creed (in the
   second article), 1689, 12th ed. Lond. 1741, and very often edited since
   by Dobson, Burton, Nichols, Chevalier, etc. George Bull (Anglican
   bishop of St. David's, 1710): Defensio fidei Nicaenae. Ox. 1685 (Opp.
   Lat. fol. ed. Grabe, Lond. 1703. Complete Works, ed. Burton, Oxf. 1827,
   and again in 1846, vol. 5th in two parts, and in English in the
   Anglo-Catholic Library, 1851). This classical work endeavors, with
   great learning, to exhibit the Nicene faith in all the ante-Nicene
   fathers, and so belongs more properly to the previous period. Dan.
   Waterland (archdeacon of Middlesex, 1730, next to Bull the ablest
   Anglican defender of the Nicene faith): Vindication of Christ's
   Divinity, 1719 ff., in Waterland's Works, ed. Mildert, vols. i. ii.
   iii. Oxf. 1843. (Several acute and learned essays and sermons in
   defence of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity against the high
   Arianism of Dr. Sam. Clarke and Dr. Whitby.) Chr. W. F. Walch:
   Vollständige Historic der Ketzereien, etc. 11 vols. Leipzig, 1762 ff.
   Vols. ii. and iii. (exceedingly thorough and exceedingly dry). Gibbon:
   History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxi. A. Möhler
   (R.C.): Athanasius der Grosse u. die Kirche seiner Zeit. Mainz (1827);
   2d ed. 1844 (Bk ii.-vi.). J. H. Newman (at the time the learned head of
   Puseyism, afterwards R.C.): The Arians of the Fourth Century. Lond.
   1838; 2d ed. (unchanged), 1854. F. Chr. Baur: Die christl. Lehre von
   der Dreieinigkeit u. Menschwerdung in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung. 3
   vols. Tübingen, 1841-'43. Vol. i. pp. 306-825 (to the council of
   Chalcedon). Comp. also Baur's Kirchengesch. vom 4ten his 6ten Jahrh.
   Tüb. 1859, pp. 79-123. Js. A. Dorner: Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von
   der Person Christi. 1836, 2d ed. in 2 vols. Stuttg. 1845-'53. Vol. i.
   pp. 773-1080 (English transl. by W. L. Alexander and D. W. Simon, in
   Clark's Foreign Theol. Library, Edinb. 1861). R. Wilberforce (at the
   time archdeacon of East Riding, afterwards R.C.): The Doctrine of the
   Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 4th ed. Lond. 1852. Bishop Kaye:
   Athanasius and the council of Nicaea. Lond. 1853. C. Jos. Hefele
   (R.C.): Conciliengeschichte. Freib. 1855 ff. Vol. i. p. 219 ff. Albert
   Prince de Broglie (R.C.): L'église et l'empire romain, au IV. siècle.
   Paris, 1856-'66, 6 vols. Vol. i. p. 331 sqq.; vol. ii. 1 sqq. W. W.
   Harvey: History and Theology of the Three Creeds. Lond. 1856, 2 vols.
   H. Voigt: Die Lehre des Athanasius von Alexandrien. Bremen, 1861. A. P.
   Stanley: Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church. 2d ed. 862
   (reprinted in New York). Sects. ii.-vii. (more brilliant than solid).
   Comp. also the relevant sections in the general Church Histories of
   Fleury, Schröckh(vols. v. and vi.), Neander, Gieseler, and in the
   Doctrine Histories of Münscher-cölln, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hagenbach,
   Baur, Beck, Shedd.

   The Arian controversy relates primarily to the deity of Christ, but in
   its course it touches also the deity of the Holy Ghost, and embraces
   therefore the whole mystery of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of
   God, which is the very centre of the Christian revelation. The dogma of
   the Trinity came up not by itself in abstract form, but in inseparable
   connection with the doctrine of the deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.
   If this latter doctrine is true, the Trinity follows by logical
   necessity, the biblical monotheism being presumed; in other words: If
   God is one, and if Christ and the Holy Ghost are distinct from the
   Father and yet participate in the divine substance, God must be triune.
   Though there are in the Holy Scriptures themselves few texts which
   directly prove the Trinity, and the name Trinity is wholly wanting in
   them, this doctrine is taught with all the greater force in a living
   form from Genesis to Revelation by the main facts of the revelation of
   God as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, besides being indirectly
   involved in the deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.

   The church always believed in this Trinity of revelation, and confessed
   its faith by baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
   of the Holy Ghost. This carried with it from the first the conviction,
   that this revelation of God must be grounded in a distinction immanent
   in the divine essence. But to bring this faith into clear and fixed
   knowledge, and to form the baptismal confession into doctrine, was the
   hard and earnest intellectual work of three centuries. In the Nicene
   age minds crashed against each other, and fought the decisive battles
   for and against the doctrines of the true deity of Christ, with which
   the divinity of Christianity stands or falls.

   The controversies on this fundamental question agitated the Roman
   empire and the church of East and West for more than half a century,
   and gave occasion to the first two ecumenical councils of Nicaea and
   Constantinople. At last the orthodox doctrine triumphed, and in 381 was
   brought into the form in which it is to this day substantially held in
   all orthodox churches.

   The external history of the Arian controversy, of which we first sketch
   the main features, falls into three stages:

   1. From the outbreak of the controversy to the temporary victory of
   orthodoxy at the council of Nicaea; a.d. 318-325.

   2. The Arian and semi-Arian reaction, and its prevalence to the death
   of Constantius; a.d. 325-361.

   3. The final victory, and the completion of the Nicene creed; to the
   council of Constantinople, a.d. 381.

   Arianism proceeded from the bosom of the Catholic church, was condemned
   as heresy at the council of Nicaea, but afterwards under various forms
   attained even ascendency for a time in the church, until at the second
   ecumenical council it was cast out forever. From that time it lost its
   importance as a politico-theological power, but continued as an
   uncatholic sect more than two hundred years among the Germanic nations,
   which were converted to Christianity under the Arian domination.

   The roots of the Arian controversy are to be found partly in the
   contradictory elements of the christology of the great Origen, which
   reflect the crude condition of the Christian mind in the third century;
   partly in the antagonism between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian
   theology. Origen, on the one hand, attributed to Christ eternity and
   other divine attributes which logically lead to the orthodox doctrine
   of the identity of substance; so that he was vindicated even by
   Athanasius, the two Cappadocian Gregories, and Basil. But, on the other
   hand, in his zeal for the personal distinctions in the Godhead, he
   taught with equal clearness a separateness of essence between the
   Father and the Son [1311] and the subordination of the Son, as a second
   or secondary God beneath the Father, [1312] and thus furnished a
   starting point for the Arian heresy. The eternal generation of the Son
   from the will of the Father was, with Origen, the communication of a
   divine but secondary substance, and this idea, in the hands of the less
   devout and profound Arius, who with his more rigid logic could admit no
   intermediate being between God and the creature, deteriorated to the
   notion of the primal creature.

   But in general Arianism was much more akin to the spirit of the
   Antiochian school than to that of the Alexandrian. Arius himself traced
   his doctrine to Lucian of Antioch, who advocated the heretical views of
   Paul of Samosata on the Trinity, and was for a time excommunicated, but
   afterwards rose to great consideration, and died a martyr under
   Maximinus.

   Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, made earnest of the Origenistic
   doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (which was afterwards
   taught by Athanasius and the Nicene creed, but in a deeper sense, as
   denoting the generation of a person of the same substance from the
   substance of the Father, and not of a person of different substance
   from the will of the Father), and deduced from it the homo-ousia or
   consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

   Arius, [1313] a presbyter of the same city after 313, who is
   represented as a tall, thin, learned, adroit, austere, and fascinating
   man, but proud, artful, restless, and disputatious, pressed and
   overstated the Origenistic view of the subordination, accused Alexander
   of Sabellianism, and taught that Christ, while he was indeed the
   creator of the world, was himself a creature of God, therefore not
   truly divine. [1314]

   The contest between these two views broke out about the year 318 or
   320. Arius and his followers, for their denial of the true deity of
   Christ, were deposed and excommunicated by a council of a hundred
   Egyptian and Libyan bishops at Alexandria in 321. In spite of this he
   continued to hold religious assemblies of his numerous adherents, and
   when driven from Alexandria, agitated his doctrine in Palestine and
   Nicomedia, and diffused it in an entertaining work, half poetry, half
   prose: The Banquet (Thaleia), of which a few fragments are preserved in
   Athanasius. Several bishops, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia and
   Eusebius of Caesarea, who either shared his view or at least considered
   it innocent, defended him. Alexander issued a number of circular
   letters to all the bishops against the apostates and Exukontians.
   [1315] Bishop rose against bishop, and province against province. The
   controversy soon involved, through the importance of the subject and
   the zeal of the parties, the entire church, and transformed the whole
   Christian East into a theological battle-field.

   Constantine, the first emperor who mingled in the religious affairs of
   Christendom, and who did this from a political, monarchical interest
   for the unity of the empire and of religion, was at first inclined to
   consider the contest a futile logomachy, and endeavored to reconcile
   the parties in diplomatic style by letters and by the personal mission
   of the aged bishop Hosius of Spain; but without effect. Questions of
   theological and religious principle are not to be adjusted, like
   political measures, by compromise, but must be fought through to their
   last results, and the truth must either conquer or (for the time)
   succumb. Then, in pursuance, as he thought, of a "divine inspiration,"
   and probably also with the advice of bishops who were in friendship
   with him, [1316] he summoned the first universal council, to represent
   the whole church of the empire, and to give a final decision upon the
   relation of Christ to God, and upon some minor questions of discipline,
   the time of Easter, and the Meletian schism in Egypt.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1311] Heterotes tes ousias, or tou hupokeimenou.De Orat. c. 15.

   [1312] Hence be termed the Logos deuteros Theos, or Theos(without the
   article, comp. John i. 1), in distinction from the Father, who is
   absolute God, ho Theos, or autotheos, Deus per se. He calls the Father
   also the root (rhiza) and fountain (pege) of the whole Godhead. Comp.
   vol. i. § 78. Redepenning: Origenes, ii. 304 sq., and Thomasius:
   Origenes, p. 118 sq.

   [1313] Areios.

   [1314] This, however, is manifestly contrary to Origen's view, which
   made Christ an intermediate being between the uncreated Father and the
   creature, Contra Cels. iii. 34.

   [1315] Hoi ex ouk onton. So he named the Arians, for their assertion
   that the Son of God was made ex ouk onton out of nothing.

   [1316] At least Rufinus says, H. E. i. 1: "Ex sacerdotum sententia."
   Probably Hosius and Eusebius of Caesarea had most influence with the
   emperor in this matter, as in others. But of any coöperation of the
   pope in the summoning of the council of Nicaea the earliest documents
   know nothing.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 120. The Council of Nicaea, 325.

   SOURCES.

   (1) The twenty Canones, the doctrinal Symbol, and a Decree of the
   Council of Nicaea, and several Letters of bishop Alexander of
   Alexandria and the emperor Constantine (all collected in Greek and
   Latin in Mansi: Collect. sacrorum Conciliorum, tom. ii. fol. 635-704).
   Official minutes of the transactions themselves were not at that time
   made; only the decrees as adopted were set down in writing and
   subscribed by all (comp. Euseb. Vita Const. iii. 14). All later
   accounts of voluminous acts of the council are sheer fabrications
   (Comp. Hefele, i. p. 249 sqq.)

   (2) Accounts of eye-witnesses, especially Eusebius, Vita Const. iii.
   4-24 (superficial, rather Arianizing, and a panegyric of the emperor
   Constantine). The Church History of Eusebius, which should have closed
   with the council of Nice, comes down only to the year 324. Athanasius:
   De decretis Synodi Nic.; Orationes iv contra Arianos; Epist. ad Afros,
   and other historical and anti-Arian tracts in tom. i. and ii. of his
   Opera, ed. Bened. and the more important of them also in the first vol.
   of Thilo's Bibliotheca Patrum Graec. dogmat. Lips. 1853. (Engl. transl.
   in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.)

   (3) The later accounts of Epiphanius: Haer. 69; Socrates: H. E. i. 8
   sqq.; Sozomen: H. E. i. 17 sqq.; Theodoret: H. E. i. 1-13; Rufinus: H.
   E. i. 1-6 (or lib. x., if his transl. of Eusebius be counted in).
   Gelasius Cyzicenus (about 476): Commentarius actorum Concilii Nicaeni
   (Greek and Latin in Mansi, tom. ii. fol. 759 sqq.; it professes to be
   founded on an old MS., but is filled with imaginary speeches). Comp.
   also the four Coptic fragments in Pitra: Spicilegium Solesmense, Par.
   1852, vol. i. p. 509 sqq., and the Syriac fragments in Analecta
   Nicaena. Fragments relating to the Council of Nicaea. The Syriac text
   from am ancient MS. by H. Cowper, Lond. 1857.

   LITERATURE.

   Of the historians cited at § 119 must be here especially mentioned
   Tillemont (R.C.), Walch, Schröckh, Gibbon, Hefele (i. pp. 249-426), A.
   de Broglie (vol. ii. ch. iv. pp. 3-70), and Stanley. Besides them,
   Ittig: Historia concilii Nicaeni, Lips. 1712. Is. Boyle: A historical
   View of the Council of Nice, with a translation of Documents, New York,
   1856 (in Crusé's ed. of Euseb.'s Church History). Comp. also § 65 and
   66 above, where this in connection with the other ecumenical councils
   has already been spoken of.

   Nicaea, the very name of which speaks victory, was the second city of
   Bithynia, only twenty English miles from the imperial residence of
   Nicomedia, and easily accessible by sea and land from all parts of the
   empire. It is now a miserable Turkish village, Is-nik, [1317] where
   nothing but a rude picture in the solitary church of St. Mary remains
   to the memory of the event which has given the place a name in the
   history of the world.

   Hither, in the year 325, the twentieth of his reign (therefore the
   festive vicennalia), the emperor summoned the bishops of the empire by
   a letter of invitation, putting at their service the public
   conveyances, and liberally defraying from the public treasury the
   expenses of their residence in Nicaea and of their return. Each bishop
   was to bring with him two presbyters and three servants. [1318] They
   travelled partly in the public post carriages, partly on horses, mules,
   or asses, partly on foot. Many came to bring their private disputes
   before the emperor, who caused all their papers, without reading them,
   to be burned, and exhorted the parties to reconciliation and harmony.

   The whole number of bishops assembled was at most three hundred and
   eighteen; [1319] that is, about one sixth of all the bishops of the
   empire, who are estimated as at least eighteen hundred (one thousand
   for the Greek provinces, eight hundred for the Latin), and only half as
   many as were at the council of Chalcedon. Including the presbyters and
   deacons and other attendants the number may, have amounted to between
   fifteen hundred and two thousand. Most of the Eastern provinces were
   strongly represented; the Latin church, on the contrary, had only seven
   delegates: from Spain Hosius of Cordova, from France Nicasius of Dijon,
   from North Africa Caecilian of Carthage, from Pannonia Domnus of
   Strido, from Italy Eustorgius of Milan and Marcus of Calabria, from
   Rome the two presbyters Victor or Vitus and Vincentius as delegates of
   the aged pope Sylvester I. A Persian bishop John, also, and a Gothic
   bishop, Theophilus, the forerunner and teacher of the Gothic Bible
   translator Ulfilas, were present.

   The formal sessions began, after preliminary disputations between
   Catholics, Arians, and philosophers, probably about Pentecost, or at
   farthest after the arrival of the emperor on the 14th of June. They
   closed on the 25th of July, the anniversary of the accession of
   Constantine; though the members did not disperse till the 25th of
   August. [1320] They were held, it appears, part of the time in a church
   or some public building, part of the time in the emperor's house.

   The formal opening of the council was made by the stately entrance of
   the emperor, which Eusebius in his panegyrical flattery thus describes:
   [1321] "After all the bishops had entered the central building of the
   royal palace, on the sides of which very many seats were prepared, each
   took his place with becoming modesty, and silently awaited the arrival
   of the emperor. The court officers entered one after another, though
   only such as professed faith in Christ. The moment the approach of the
   emperor was announced by a given signal, they all rose from their
   seats, and the emperor appeared like a heavenly messenger of God,
   [1322] covered with gold and gems, a glorious presence, very tall and
   slender, full of beauty, strength, and majesty. With this external
   adornment he united the spiritual ornament of the fear of God, modesty,
   and humility, which could be seen in his downcast eyes, his blushing
   face, the motion of his body, and his walk. When he reached the golden
   throne prepared for him, he stopped, and sat not down till the bishops
   gave him the sign. And after him they all resumed their seats."

   How great the contrast between this position of the church and the time
   of her persecution but scarcely passed! What a revolution of opinion in
   bishops who had once feared the Roman emperor as the worst enemy of the
   church, and who now greeted the same emperor in his half barbarous
   attire as an angel of God from heaven, and gave him, though not yet
   even baptized, the honorary presidency of the highest assembly of the
   church!

   After a brief salutatory address from the bishop on the right of the
   emperor, by which we are most probably to understand Eusebius of
   Caesarea, the emperor himself delivered with a gentle voice in the
   official Latin tongue the opening address, which was immediately after
   translated into Greek, and runs thus: [1323]

   "It was my highest wish, my friends, that I might be permitted to enjoy
   your assembly. I must thank God that, in addition to all other
   blessings, he has shown me this highest one of all: to see you all
   gathered here in harmony and with one mind. May no malicious enemy rob
   us of this happiness, and after the tyranny of the enemy of Christ
   [Licinius and his army] is conquered by the help of the Redeemer, the
   wicked demon shall not persecute the divine law with new blasphemies.
   Discord in the church I consider more fearful and painful than any
   other war. As soon as I by the help of God had overcome my enemies, I
   believed that nothing more was now necessary than to give thanks to God
   in common joy with those whom I had liberated. But when I heard of your
   division, I was convinced that this matter should by no means be
   neglected, and in the desire to assist by my service, I have summoned
   you without delay. I shall, however, feel my desire fulfilled only when
   I see the minds of all united in that peaceful harmony which you, as
   the anointed of God, must preach to others. Delay not therefore, my
   friends, delay not, servants of God; put away all causes of strife, and
   loose all knots of discord by the laws of peace. Thus shall you
   accomplish the work most pleasing to God, and confer upon me, your
   fellow servant, [1324] an exceeding great joy."

   After this address he gave way to the (ecclesiastical) presidents of
   the council [1325] and the business began. The emperor, however,
   constantly, took an active part, and exercised a considerable
   influence.

   Among the fathers of the council, besides a great number of obscure
   mediocrities, there were several distinguished and venerable men.
   Eusebius of Caesarea was most eminent for learning; the young
   archdeacon Athanasius, who accompanied the bishop Alexander of
   Alexandria, for zeal, intellect, and eloquence. Some, as confessors,
   still bore in their body the marks of Christ from the times of
   persecution: Paphnutius of the Upper Thebaid, Potamon of Heraklea,
   whose right eye had been put out, and Paul of Neo-Caesarea, who had
   been tortured with red hot iron under Licinius, and crippled in both
   his hands. Others were distinguished for extraordinary ascetic
   holiness, and even for miraculous works; like Jacob of Nisibis, who had
   spent years as a hermit in forests and eaves, and lived like a wild
   beast on roots and leaves, and Spyridion (or St. Spiro) of Cyprus, the
   patron of the Ionian isles, who even after his ordination remained a
   simple shepherd. Of the Eastern bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, and of
   the Western, Hosius, or Osius, of Cordova, [1326] had the greatest
   influence with the emperor. These two probably sat by his side, and
   presided in the deliberations alternately with the bishops of
   Alexandria and Antioch.

   In reference to the theological question the council was divided in the
   beginning into three parties. [1327]

   The orthodox party, which held firmly to the deity of Christ, was at
   first in the minority, but in talent and influence the more weighty. At
   the head of it stood the bishop (or "pope") Alexander of Alexandria,
   Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra,
   Rosins of Cordova (the court bishop), and above all the Alexandrian
   archdeacon, Athanasius, who, though small and young, and, according to
   later practice not admissible to a voice or a seat in a council,
   evinced more zeal and insight than all, and gave promise already of
   being the future head of the orthodox party.

   The Arians or Eusebians numbered perhaps twenty bishops, under the lead
   of the influential bishop Eusebius of Nicemedia (afterwards of
   Constantinople), who was allied with the imperial family, and of the
   presbyter Arius, who attended at the command of the emperor, and was
   often called upon to set forth his views. [1328] To these also belonged
   Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Menophantus of Ephesus;
   embracing in this remarkable way the bishops of the several seats of
   the orthodox ecumenical councils.

   The majority, whose organ was the renowned historian Eusebius of
   Caesarea, took middle ground between the right and the left, but bore
   nearer the right, and finally went over to that side. Many of them had
   an orthodox instinct, but little discernment; others were disciples of
   Origen, or preferred simple biblical expression to a scholastic
   terminology; others had no firm convictions, but only uncertain
   opinions, and were therefore easily swayed by the arguments of the
   stronger party or by mere external considerations.

   The Arians first proposed a creed, which however was rejected with
   tumultuous disapproval, and torn to pieces; whereupon all the eighteen
   signers of it, excepting Theonas and Secundus, both of Egypt, abandoned
   the cause of Arius.

   Then the church historian Eusebius, in the name of the middle party,
   proposed an ancient Palestinian Confession, which was very similar to
   the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general
   biblical terms, but avoided the term in question,
   homoousiosconsubstantialis, of the same essence. The emperor had
   already seen and approved this confession, and even the Arian minority
   were ready to accept it.

   But this last circumstance itself was very suspicious to the extreme
   right. They wished a creed which no Arian could honestly subscribe, and
   especially insisted on inserting the expression homo-ousios, which the
   Arians hated and declared to be unscriptural, Sabellian, and
   materialistic. [1329] The emperor saw clearly that the Eusebian formula
   would not pass; and, as he had at heart, for the sake of peace, the
   most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice
   for the disputed word.

   Then Hosius of Cordova appeared and announced that a confession was
   prepared which would now be read by the deacon (afterwards bishop)
   Hermogenes of Caesarea, the secretary of the synod. It is in substance
   the well-known Nicene creed with some additions and omissions of which
   we are to speak below. It is somewhat abrupt; the council not caring to
   do more than meet the immediate exigency. The direct concern was only
   to establish the doctrine of the true deity of the Son. The deity of
   the Holy Spirit, though inevitably involved, did not then come up as a
   subject of special discussion, and therefore the synod contented itself
   on this point with the sentence: "And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost."
   [1330] The council of Constantinople enlarged the last article
   concerning the Holy Ghost. To the positive part of the Nicene
   confession is added a condemnation of the Arian heresy, which dropped
   out of the formula afterwards received.

   Almost all the bishops subscribed the creed, Hosius at the head, and
   next him the two Roman presbyters in the name of their bishop. This is
   the first instance of such signing of a document in the Christian
   church. Eusebius of Caesarea also signed his name after a day's
   deliberation, and vindicated this act in a letter to his diocese.
   Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea subscribed the creed
   without the condemnatory formula, and for this they were deposed and
   for a time banished, but finally consented to all the decrees of the
   council. The Arian historian Philostorgius, who however deserves little
   credit, [1331] accuses them of insincerity in having substituted, by
   the advice of the emperor, for homo-ousios(of the same essence) the
   semi-Arian word homoi-ousios(of like essence). Only two Egyptian
   bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to sign, and were
   banished with Arius to Illyria. The books of Arius were burned and his
   followers branded as enemies of Christianity. [1332]

   This is the first example of the civil punishment of heresy; and it is
   the beginning of a long succession of civil persecutions for all
   departures from the Catholic faith. Before the union of church and
   state ecclesiastical excommunication was the extreme penalty. Now
   banishment and afterwards even death were added, because all offences
   against the church were regarded as at the same time crimes against the
   state and civil society.

   The two other points on which the council of Nicaea decided, the Easter
   question and the Meletian schism, have been already spoken of in their
   place. The council issued twenty canons in reference to discipline. The
   creed and the canons were written in a book, and again signed by the
   bishops. The council issued a letter to the Egyptian and Libyan bishops
   as to the decision of the three main points; the emperor also sent
   several edicts to the churches, in which he ascribed the decrees to
   divine inspiration, and set them forth as laws of the realm. On the
   twenty-ninth of July, the twentieth anniversary of his accession, he
   gave the members of the council a splendid banquet in his palace, which
   Eusebius (quite too susceptible to worldly splendor) describes as a
   figure of the reign of Christ on earth; he remunerated the bishops
   lavishly, and dismissed them with a suitable valedictory, and with
   letters of commendation to the authorities of all the provinces on
   their homeward way.

   Thus ended the council of Nicaea. It is the first and most venerable of
   the ecumenical synods, and next to the apostolic council at Jerusalem
   the most important and the most illustrious of all the councils of
   Christendom. Athanasius calls it "a true monument and token of victory
   against every heresy;" Leo the Great, like Constantine, attributes its
   decrees to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and ascribes even to its
   canons perpetual validity; the Greek church annually observes (on the
   Sunday before Pentecost) a special feast in memory of it. There
   afterwards arose a multitude of apocryphal orations and legends in
   glorification of it, of which Gelasius of Cyzicus in the fifth century
   collected a whole volume. [1333]

   The council of Nicaea is the most important event of the fourth
   century, and its bloodless intellectual victory over a dangerous error
   is of far greater consequence to the progress of true civilization,
   than all the bloody victories of Constantine and his successors. It
   forms an epoch in the history of doctrine, summing up the results of
   all previous discussions on the deity of Christ and the incarnation,
   and at the same time regulating the further development of the Catholic
   orthodoxy for centuries. The Nicene creed, in the enlarged form which
   it received after the second ecumenical council, is the only one of
   all, the symbols of doctrine which, with the exception of the
   subsequently added filioque, is acknowledged alike by the Greek, the
   Latin, and the Evangelical churches, and to this, day, after a course
   of fifteen centuries, is prayed and sung from Sunday to Sunday in all
   countries of the civilized world. The Apostles' Creed indeed, is much
   more generally used in the West, and by its greater simplicity and more
   popular form is much better adapted to catechetical and liturgical
   purposes; but it has taken no root in the Eastern church; still less
   the Athanasian Creed, which exceeds the Nicene in logical precision and
   completeness. Upon the bed of lava grows the sweet fruit of the vine.
   The wild passions and the weaknesses of men, which encompassed the
   Nicene council, are extinguished, but the faith in the eternal deity of
   Christ has remained, and so long as this faith lives, the council of
   Nicaea will be named with reverence and with gratitude.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1317] I.e., Eis Nikaian, like Stambul, Is-tam-bul, from eis ten polin.
   Isnik now contains only some fifteen hundred inhabitants.

   [1318] The imperial letter of convocation is not extant. Eusebius says,
   Vita Const. iii. 6, the emperor by very respectful letters invited the
   bishops of all countries to come with all speed to Nicaea (speudein
   hapantachothen tous episkopous ;grammasi timetikois prokaloumenos).
   Arius also was invited (Rufinus, H. E. i. 1). In an invitation of
   Constantineto the bishop of Syracuse to attend the council of Arles (as
   given by Eusebius, H. E. x. c. 5), the emperor directs him to bring
   with him two priests and three servants, and promises to defray the
   travelling expenses. The same was no doubt done at the council of Nice.
   Comp. Eus. V. Const. iii. 6 and 9.

   [1319] According to Athanasius (Ad Afros, c. 2, and elsewhere),
   Socrates (H. E. l. 8), Theodoret (H. E. i. 7), and the usual opinion.
   The spirit of mystic interpretation gave to the number 318, denoted in
   Greek by the letters TIH, a reference to the cross (T), and to the holy
   name Jesus (IEsous). It was also (Ambrose, De fide, i. 18) put in
   connection with the three hundred and eighteen servants of Abraham, the
   father of the faithful (Gen. xiv. 14). Eusebius, however, gives only
   two hundred and fifty bishops (pentekonta kai diakosion arithmon), or a
   few over; but with an indefinite number of attendant priests, deacons,
   and acolyths (Vit. Const. iii. 8). The later Arabic accounts of more
   than two thousand bishops probably arose from confounding bishops and
   clergy in general. Perhaps the number of members increased towards the
   close, so that Eusebius with his 260, and Athanasius with his 318, may
   both be right. The extant Latin lists of the subscribers contain the
   names of no more than two hundred and twenty-four bishops and
   chorepiscopi, and many of these are mutilated and distorted by the
   mistakes of transcribers, and varied in the different copies. Comp. the
   list from an ancient Coptic cloister in Pitra's Spicilegium Solesmense
   (Par. 1852.), tom. i. p. 516 sqq.; and Hefele, Conciliengesch. i. 284.

   [1320] On the various dates, comp. Hefele, l. c. i. p. 261 sqq.
   Broglie, ii. 26, puts the arrival of the emperor earlier, on the 4th or
   5th of June.

   [1321] Vita Const. iii. 10. The above translation is somewhat abridged.

   [1322] Hoia Theou tis ouranios ; angelos.

   [1323] According to Eusebius, l. c. iii. c. 12. Sozomen, Socrates, and
   Rufinus also give the emperor's speech, somewhat differently, but in
   substantial agreement with this.

   [1324] to humetero suntheraponti.

   [1325] Paredidou tonlogon tois tes sunodou proedrois, says Euseb. iii.
   13. The question of the presidency in the ecumenical councils has
   already been spoken of in § 65.

   [1326] Athanasius always calls him the Great, ho megas.

   [1327] The ancient and the Roman Catholic historians (and A. de
   Broglie, l.c. vol. ii. p. 21) generally assume only two parties, an
   orthodox majority and a heretical minority. But the position of
   Eusebius of Caesarea, the character of his confession, and the
   subsequent history of the controversy, prove the existence of a middle,
   semi-Arian party. Athanasius, too, who usually puts all shades of
   opponents together, accuses Eusebius of Caesarea and others repeatedly
   of insincerity in their subscription of the Nicene creed, and yet these
   were not proper Arians, but semi-Arians.

   [1328] Rufinus, i. 5: "Evocabatur frequenter Arius in concilium."

   [1329] Athanasius himself, however, laid little stress on the term, and
   rarely used it in his theological expositions; he cared more for the
   thing than the name. The word homoousios, from homosand ousia was not
   an invention of the council of Nice, still less of Constantine, but had
   previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen
   and among the Gnostics, though of course it is no more to be found in
   the Bible than the word trinity.

   [1330] Dr. Shedd, therefore, is plainly incorrect in saying, Hist. of
   Chr. Doctrine, vol. i. p. 308: "The problem to be solved by the Nicene
   council was to exhibit the doctrine of the trinity in its completeness;
   to bring into the creed statement the total data of Scripture upon both
   the side of unity and trinity." This was not done till the council of
   Constantinople in 381, and strictly not till the still later Symbolum
   Athanasianum.

   [1331] Even Gibbon (ch. xxi.) places very little dependence on this
   historian: "The credibility of Philostorgius is lessened, in the eyes
   of the orthodox, by his Arianism; and in those of rational critics [as
   if the orthodox were necessarily irrational and uncritical!] by his
   passion, his prejudice, and his ignorance."

   [1332] Jerome(Adv. Lucifer, c. 20; Opera, ed. Vallars. tom. ii. p. 192
   sqq.) asserts, on the authority of aged witnesses then still living,
   that Arius and his adherents were pardoned even before the close of the
   council. Socrates also says (H. E. i. c. 14) that Arius was recalled
   from banishment before Eusebius and Theognis, but under prohibition of
   return to Alexandria. This isolated statement, however, cannot well be
   harmonized with the subsequent recalling, and probably arose from some
   confusion.

   [1333] Stanly (sic) interweaves several of these miraculous legends
   with graphical minuteness into the text of his narrative, thus giving
   it the interest of romance, at the expense of the dignity of historical
   statement. The simple Spyridion performed, on his journey to the
   Council, the amazing feat of restoring in the dark his two mules to
   life by annexing the white head to the chestnut mule, and the chestnut
   head to its white companion, and overtook the rival bishops who had cut
   off the heads of the mules with the intention to prevent the rustic
   bishop from reaching Nicaea and hurting the cause of orthodoxy by his
   ignorance! According to another version of this silly legend the
   decapitation of the mules is ascribed to malicious Arians.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 121. The Arian and Semi-Arian Reaction, a.d. 325-361.

   The victory of the council of Nicaea over the views of the majority of
   the bishops was a victory only in appearance. It had, to be sure,
   erected a mighty fortress, in which the defenders of the essential
   deity of Christ might ever take refuge from the assaults of heresy; and
   in this view it was of the utmost importance, and secured the final
   triumph of the truth. But some of the bishops had subscribed the
   homoousion with reluctance, or from regard to the emperor, or at best
   with the reservation of a broad interpretation; and with a change of
   circumstances they would readily turn in opposition. The controversy
   now for the first time fairly broke loose, and Arianism entered the
   stage of its political development and power. An intermediate period of
   great excitement ensued, during which council was held against council,
   creed was set forth against creed, and anathema against anathema was
   hurled. The pagan Ammianus Marcellinus says of the councils under
   Constantius: "The highways were covered with galloping bishops;" and
   even Athanasius rebuked the restless flutter of the clergy, who
   journeyed the empire over to find the true faith, and provoked the
   ridicule and contempt of the unbelieving world. In intolerance and
   violence the Arians exceeded the orthodox, and contested elections of
   bishops not rarely came to bloody encounters. The interference of
   imperial politics only poured oil on the flame, and embarrassed the
   natural course of the theological development.

   The personal history of Athanasius was interwoven with the doctrinal
   controversy; he threw himself wholly into the cause which he advocated.
   The question whether his deposition was legitimate or not, was almost
   identical with the question whether the Nicene Creed should prevail.

   Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea threw all their influence
   against the adherents of the homoousion. Constantine himself was turned
   by Eusebius of Caesarea, who stood between Athanasius and Arius, by his
   sister Constantia and her father confessor, and by a vague confession
   of Arius, to think more favorably of Arius, and to recall him from
   exile. Nevertheless he afterwards, as before, thought himself in
   accordance with the orthodox view and the Nicene creed. The real gist
   of the controversy he had never understood. Athanasius, who after the
   death of Alexander in April, 328, [1334] became bishop of Alexandria
   and head of the Nicene party, refused to reinstate the heretic in his
   former position, and was condemned and deposed for false accusations by
   two Arian councils, one at Tyre under the presidency of the historian
   Eusebius, the other at Constantinople in the year 335 (or 336), and
   banished by the emperor to Treves in Gaul in 336, as a disturber of the
   peace of the church.

   Soon after this Arius, having been formally acquitted of the charge of
   heresy by a council at Jerusalem (a.d. 335), was to have been solemnly
   received back into the fellowship of the church at Constantinople. But
   on the evening before the intended procession from the imperial palace
   to the church of the Apostles, he suddenly died (a.d. 336), at the age
   of over eighty years, of an attack like cholera, while attending to a
   call of nature. This death was regarded by many as a divine judgment;
   by others, it was attributed to poisoning by enemies; by others, to the
   excessive joy of Arius in his triumph. [1335]

   On the death of Constantine (337), who had shortly before received
   baptism from the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia, Athanasius was recalled
   from his banishment (338) by Constantine II. ( 340), and received by
   the people with great enthusiasm; "more joyously than ever an emperor."
   [1336] Some months afterwards (339) he held a council of nearly a
   hundred bishops in Alexandria for the vindication of the Nicene
   doctrine. But this was a temporary triumph.

   In the East Arianism prevailed. Constantius, second son of Constantine
   the Great, and ruler in the East, together with his whole court, was
   attached to it with fanatical intolerance. Eusebius of Nicomedia was
   made bishop of Constantinople (338), and was the leader of the Arian
   and the more moderate, but less consistent semi-Arian parties in their
   common opposition to Athanasius and the orthodox West. Hence the name
   Eusebians. [1337] Athanasius was for a second time deposed, and took
   refuge with the bishop Julius of Rome (339 or 340), who in the autumn
   of 341 held a council of more than fifty bishops in defence of the
   exile and for the condemnation of his opponents. The whole Western
   church was in general more steadfast on the side of the Nicene
   orthodoxy, and honored in Athanasius a martyr of the true faith. On the
   contrary a synod at Antioch, held under the direction of the Eusebians
   on the occasion of the dedication of a church in 341, [1338] issued
   twenty-five canons, indeed, which were generally accepted as orthodox
   and valid, but at the same time confirmed the deposition of Athanasius,
   and set forth four creeds, which rejected Arianism, yet avoided the
   orthodox formula, particularly the vexed homoousion. [1339]

   Thus the East and the West were in manifest conflict.

   To heal this division, the two emperors, Constantius in the East and
   Constans in the West, summoned a general council at Sardica in Illyria,
   a.d. 343. [1340] Here the Nicene party and the Roman influence
   prevailed. [1341] Pope Julius was represented by two Italian priests.
   The Spanish bishop Hosius presided. The Nicene doctrine was here
   confirmed, and twelve canons were at the same time adopted, some of
   which are very important in reference to discipline and the authority
   of the Roman see. But the Arianizing Oriental bishops, dissatisfied
   with the admission of Athanasius, took no part in the proceedings, held
   an opposition council in the neighboring city of Philippopolis, and
   confirmed the decrees of the council of Antioch. The opposite councils,
   therefore, inflamed the discord of the church, instead of allaying it.

   Constantius was compelled, indeed, by his brother to restore Athanasius
   to his office in 346; but after the death of Constans, a.d. 350, be
   summoned three successive synods in favor of a moderate Arianism; one
   at Sirmium in Pannonia (351), one at Arelate or Arles in Gaul (353),
   and one at Milan in Italy, (355); he forced the decrees of these
   councils on the Western church, deposed and banished bishops, like
   Liberius of Rome, Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer of
   Calaris, who resisted them, and drove Athanasius from the cathedral of
   Alexandria during divine service with five thousand armed soldiers, and
   supplied his place with an uneducated and avaricious Arian, George of
   Cappadocia (356). In these violent measures the court bishops and
   Eusebia, the last wife of Constantius and a zealous Arian, had great
   influence. Even in their exile the faithful adherents of the Nicene
   faith were subjected to all manner of abuse and vexation. Hence
   Constantius was vehemently attacked by Athanasius, Hilary, and Lucifer,
   compared to Pharaoh, Saul, Ahab, Belshazzar, and called an inhuman
   beast, the forerunner of Antichrist, and even Antichrist himself.

   Thus Arianism gained the ascendency in the whole Roman empire; though
   not in its original rigorous form, but in the milder form of
   homoi-ousianism or the doctrine of similarity of essence, as opposed on
   the one hand to the Nicene homo-ousianism (sameness of essence), and on
   the other hand to the Arian hetero-ousianism (difference of essence).

   Even the papal chair was desecrated by heresy during this Arian
   interregnum; after the deposition of Liberius, the deacon Felix II.,
   "by antichristian wickedness," as Athanasius expresses it, was elected
   his successor. [1342] Many Roman historians for this reason regard him
   as a mere anti-pope. But in the Roman church books this Felix is
   inserted, not only as a legitimate pope, but even as a saint, because,
   according to a much later legend, he was executed by Constantius, whom
   he called a heretic. His memory is celebrated on the twenty-ninth of
   July. His subsequent fortunes are very differently related. The Roman
   people desired the recall of Liberius, and he, weary of exile, was
   prevailed upon to apostatize by subscribing an Arian or at least
   Arianizing confession, and maintaining church fellowship with the
   Eusebians. [1343] On this condition he was restored to his papal
   dignity, and received with enthusiasm into Rome (358). He died in 366
   in the orthodox faith, which he had denied through weakness, but not
   from conviction.

   Even the almost centennarian bishop Hosius was induced by long
   imprisonment and the threats of the emperor, though not himself to
   compose (as Hilary states), yet to subscribe (as Athanasius and Sozomen
   say), the Arian formula of the second council of Sirmium, a.d. 357, but
   soon after repented his unfaithfulness, and condemned the Arian heresy
   shortly before his death.

   The Nicene orthodoxy was thus apparently put down. But now the
   heretical majority, having overcome their common enemy, made ready
   their own dissolution by divisions among themselves. They separated
   into two factions. The right wing, the Eusebians or Semi-Arians, who
   were represented by Basil of Ancyra and Gregory of Laodicea, maintained
   that the Son was not indeed of the same essence (homo-ousios), yet of
   like essence (homoi-ousios), with the Father. To these belonged many
   who at heart agreed with the Nicene faith, but either harbored
   prejudices against Athanasius, or saw in the term homo-ousios an
   approach to Sabellianism; for theological science had not yet duly
   fixed the distinction of substance (ousia) and person (hupostasis), so
   that the homoousia might easily be confounded with unity of person. The
   left wing, or the decided Arians, under the lead of Eudoxius of
   Antioch, his deacon Aëtius, [1344] and especially the bishop Eunomius
   of Cyzicus in Mysia [1345] (after whom they were called also
   Eunomians), taught that the Son was of a different essence
   (heteroousios), and even unlike the Father (anomoios), and created out
   of nothing (ek ouk onton). They received also, from their standard
   terms, the names of Heterousiasts, Anomaeans, and Exukontians.

   A number of councils were occupied with this internal dissension of the
   anti-Nicene party: two at Sirmium (the second, a.d. 357; the third,
   a.d. 358), one at Antioch (358), one at Ancyra (358), the double
   council at Seleucia and Rimini (359), and one at Constantinople (360).
   But the division was not healed. The proposed compromise of entirely
   avoiding the word ousia, and substituting homoios like, for homoiousios
   of like essence, and anomoios, unlike, satisfied neither party.
   Constantius vainly endeavored to suppress the quarrel by his
   imperio-episcopal power. His death in 361 opened the way for the second
   and permanent victory of the Nicene orthodoxy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1334] According to the Syriac preface to the Syriac Festival Letters
   of Athanasius, first edited by Cureton in 1848. It was previously
   supposed that Alexander died two years earlier. Comp. Hefele, i. p.
   429.

   [1335] Comp. Athanasius, De morte Arii Epist. ad Serapionem (Opera,
   tom. i. p. 340). He got his information from his priest Macarius, who
   was in Constantinople at the time.

   [1336] So says Gregory Nazianzen. The date of his return, according to
   the Festival Letters of Athanasius, was the 23d November, 338.

   [1337] Hoi peri Eusebion.

   [1338] Hence called the council in encoeniis (enkainiois) or in
   dedicatione.

   [1339] This apparent contradiction between orthodox canons and
   semi-Arian confessions has occasioned all kinds of hypotheses in
   reference to this Antiochian synod. Comp. on them, Hefele, i. p. 486
   sqq.

   [1340] Not a.d.347, as formerly supposed. Comp. Hefele, i. 515 sqq.

   [1341] About a hundred and seventy bishops in all (according to
   Athanasius) were present at Sardica, ninety-four occidentals and
   seventy-six orientals or Eusebians. Sozomen and Socrates, on the
   contrary, estimate the number at three hundred. The signatures of the
   acts of the council are lost, excepting a defective list of fifty-nine
   names of bishops in Hilary.

   [1342] Comp. above, § 72, p. 371.

   [1343] The apostasy of Liberius comes to us upon the clear testimony of
   the most orthodox fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Sozomen, &c.,
   and of three letters of Liberius himself, which Hilaryadmitted into his
   sixth fragment, and accompanied with some remarks. Jeromesays in his
   Chronicle: "Liberius, taedio victus exilii, in haereticam pravitatem
   subscribens Romam quasi victor intravit." Comp. his Catal. script. eccl
   c. 97. He probably subscribed what is called the third Sirmian formula,
   that is, the collection of Semi-Arian decrees adopted at the third
   council of Sirmium in 358. Hefele (i. 673), from his Roman point of
   view, knows no way of saving him but by the hypothesis that he
   renounced the Nicene word (homoousios), but not the Nicene faith. But
   this, in the case of so current a party term as homoousios, which
   Liberius himself afterwards declared "the bulwark against all Arian
   heresy" (Socr. H. E. iv. 12), is entirely untenable.

   [1344] He was hated among the orthodox and Semi-Arians, and called
   atheos. He was an accomplished dialectician, a physician and
   theological author in Antioch, and died about 370 in Constantinople.

   [1345] He was a pupil and friend of Aëtius, and popularized his
   doctrine. He died in 392. Concerning him, comp. Klose, Geschichte u.
   Lehre des Eunomius, Kiel, 1833, and Dorner, l.c. vol. i. p. 853 sqq.
   cDorner calls him a deacon; but through the mediation of the bishop
   Eudoxius of Constantinople (formerly of Antioch) he received the
   bishopric of Cyzicus or Cyzicum as early as 360, before he became the
   head of the Arian party. Theodoret, H. E. l. ii. c. 29.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 122. The Final Victory of Orthodoxy, and the Council of
   Constantinople, 381.

   Julian the Apostate tolerated all Christian parties, in the hope that
   they would destroy one another. With this view he recalled the orthodox
   bishops from exile. Even Athanasius returned, but was soon banished
   again as an "enemy of the gods," and recalled by Jovian. Now for a time
   the strife of the Christians among themselves was silenced in their
   common warfare against paganism revived. The Arian controversy took its
   own natural course. The truth regained free play, and the Nicene spirit
   was permitted to assert its intrinsic power. It gradually achieved the
   victory; first in the Latin church, which held several orthodox synods
   in Rome, Milan, and Gaul; then in Egypt and the East, through the wise
   and energetic administration of Athanasius, and through the eloquence
   and the writings of the three great Cappadocian bishops Basil, Gregory
   of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa.

   After the death of Athanasius in 373, Arianism regained dominion for a
   time in Alexandria, and practised all kinds of violence upon the
   orthodox.

   In Constantinople Gregory Nazianzen labored, from 379, with great
   success in a small congregation, which alone remained true to the
   orthodox faith during the Arian rule; and he delivered in a domestic
   chapel, which he significantly named Anastasia (the church of the
   Resurrection), those renowned discourses on the deity of Christ which
   won him the title of the Divine, and with it many persecutions.

   The raging fanaticism of the Arian emperor Valens (364-378) against
   both Semi-Arians and Athanasians wrought an approach of the former
   party to the latter. His successor, Gratian, was orthodox, and recalled
   the banished bishops.

   Thus the heretical party was already in reality intellectually and
   morally broken, when the emperor Theodosius I., or the Great, a
   Spaniard by birth, and educated in the Nicene faith, ascended the
   throne, and in his long and powerful reign (379-395) externally
   completed the triumph of orthodoxy in the Roman empire. Soon after his
   accession he issued, in 380, the celebrated edict, in which he required
   all his subjects to confess the orthodox faith, and threatened the
   heretics with punishment. After his entrance into Constantinople he
   raised Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair in place of
   Demophilus (who honestly refused to renounce his heretical conviction),
   and drove the Arians, after their forty years' reign, out of all the
   churches of the capital.

   To give these forcible measures the sanction of law, and to restore
   unity in the church of the whole empire, Theodosius called the second
   ecumenical council at Constantinople in May, 381. This council, after
   the exit of the thirty-six Semi-Arian Macedonians or Pneumatomachi,
   consisted of only a hundred and fifty bishops. The Latin church was not
   represented at all. [1346] Meletius (who died soon after the opening),
   Gregory Nazianzen, and after his resignation Nectarius of
   Constantinople, successively presided. This preferment of the patriarch
   of Constantinople before the patriarch of Alexandria is explained by
   the third canon of the council, which assigns to the bishop of new Rome
   the first rank after the bishop of old Rome. The emperor attended the
   opening of the sessions, and showed the bishops all honor.

   At this council no new symbol was framed, but the Nicene Creed, with
   some unessential changes and an important addition respecting the deity
   of the Holy Ghost against Macedonianism or Pneumatoinachism, was
   adopted. [1347] In this improved form the Nicene Creed has been
   received, though in the Greek church without the later Latin addition:
   filioque.

   In the seven genuine canons of this council the heresies of the
   Eunomians or Anomoeans, of the Arians or Eudoxians, of the Semi-Arians
   or Pneumatomachi, of the Sabellians, Marcellians, and Apollinarians,
   were condemned, and questions of discipline adjusted.

   The emperor ratified the decrees of the council, and as early as July,
   381, enacted the law that all churches should be given up to bishops
   who believed in the equal divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
   Ghost, and who stood in church fellowship with certain designated
   orthodox bishops. The public worship of heretics was forbidden.

   Thus Arianism and the kindred errors were forever destroyed in the
   Roman empire, though kindred opinions continually reappear as isolated
   cases and in other connections. [1348]

   But among the different barbarian peoples of the West, especially in
   Gaul and Spain, who had received Christianity from the Roman empire
   during the ascendency of Arianism, this doctrine was perpetuated two
   centuries longer: among the Goths till 587; among the Suevi in Spain
   till 560; among the Vandals who conquered North Africa in 429 and
   cruelly persecuted the Catholics, till their expulsion by Belisarius in
   530; among the Burgundians till their incorporation in the Frank empire
   in 534, and among the Longobards till the close of the sixth century.
   These barbarians, however, held Arianism rather through accident than
   from conviction, and scarcely knew the difference between it and the
   orthodox doctrine. Alaric, the first conqueror of Rome; Genseric, the
   conqueror of North Africa; Theodoric the Great, king of Italy and hero
   of the Niebelungen Lied, were Arians. The first Teutonic translation of
   the Bible came from the Arian missionary Ulfilas.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1346] In the earliest Latin translation of the canons of this council,
   indeed, three Roman legates, Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Bonifacius,
   are recorded among the signers (in Mansi, t. vi. p. 1176), but from an
   evident confusion of this council with the fourth ecumenical of 451,
   which these delegates attended. Comp. Hefele, ii. p. 3 and 393. The
   assertion of Baronius that in reality pope Damasus summoned the
   council, rests likewise on a mistake of the first council of
   Constantinople for the second in 382.

   [1347] This modification and enlargement of the Nicene Creed seems not
   to have originated with the second ecumenical council, but to have been
   current in substance about ten years earlier. For Epiphanius, in his
   Ancoratus, which was composed in 374, gives two similar creeds, which
   were then already in use in the East; the shorter one literally agrees
   with that of Constantinople (c. 119, ed. Migne, tom. iii. p. 231); the
   longer one (c. 120) is more lengthy on the Holy Ghost; both have the
   anathema. Hefele, ii. 10, overlooks the shorter and more important
   form.

   [1348] John Milton and Isaac Newton cannot properly be termed Arians.
   Their view of the relation of the Son to the Father was akin to that of
   Arius, but their spirit and their system of ideas were totally
   different. Bishop Bull'sgreat work, Defensio fidei Nicaenae, first
   published 1685, was directed against Socinian and Arian views which
   obtained in England, but purely with historical arguments drawn from
   the ante-Nicene fathers. Shortly afterwards the high Arian view was
   revived and ably defended with exegetical, patristic, and philosophical
   arguments by Whiston, Whitby, and especially by Dr. Samuel Clarke(died
   1729), in his treatise on the "Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity"
   (1712), which gave rise to a protracted controversy, and to the
   strongest dialectical defence (though broken and irregular in method)
   of the Nicene doctrine in the English language by Dr. Waterland. This
   trinitarian controversy, one of the ablest and most important in the
   history of English theology, is very briefly and superficially touched
   in the great works of Dr. Baur (vol. iii. p. 685 ff.) and Dorner (vol.
   ii. p. 903 ff.); but the defect has been supplied by Prof. Patrick
   Fairbairnin an Appendix to the English translation of Dorner's History
   of Christology, Divis. Secd. vol. iii. p. 337 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 123. The Theological Principles involved: Import of the Controversy.

   Here should be compared, of the works before mentioned, especially
   Petavius (tom. sec. De sanctissima Trinitate), and Möhler (Athanasius,
   third book), of the Romanists, and Baur, Dorner, and Voigt, of the
   Protestants.

   We pass now to the internal history of the Arian conflict, the
   development of the antagonistic ideas; first marking some general
   points of view from which the subject must be conceived.

   To the superficial and rationalistic eye this great struggle seems a
   metaphysical subtilty and a fruitless logomachy, revolving about a
   Greek iota. But it enters into the heart of Christianity, and must
   necessarily affect in a greater or less degree all other articles of
   faith. The different views of the contending parties concerning the
   relation of Christ to the Father involved the general question, whether
   Christianity is truly divine, the highest revelation, and an actual
   redemption, or merely a relative truth, which may be superseded by a
   more perfect revelation.

   Thus the controversy is conceived even by Dr. Baur, who is
   characterized by a much deeper discernment of the philosophical and
   historical import of the conflicts in the history of Christian
   doctrine, than all other rationalistic historians. "The main question,"
   he says, "was, whether Christianity is the highest and absolute
   revelation of God, and such that by it in the Son of God the
   self-existent absolute being of God joins itself to man, and so
   communicates itself that man through the Son becomes truly one with
   God, and comes into such community of essence with God, as makes him
   absolutely certain of pardon and salvation. From this point of view
   Athanasius apprehended the gist of the controversy, always finally
   summing up all his objections to the Arian doctrine with the chief
   argument, that the whole substance of Christianity, all reality of
   redemption, everything which makes Christianity the perfect salvation,
   would be utterly null and meaningless, if he who is supposed to unite
   man with God in real unity of being, were not himself absolute God, or
   of one substance with the absolute God, but only a creature among
   creatures. The infinite chasm which separates creature from Creator,
   remains unfilled; there is nothing really mediatory between God and
   man, if between the two there be nothing more than some created and
   finite thing, or such a mediator and redeemer as the Arians conceive
   the Son of God in his essential distinction from God: not begotten from
   the essence of God and coeternal, but created out of nothing and
   arising in time. Just as the distinctive character of the Athanasian
   doctrine lies in its effort to conceive the relation of the Father and
   Son, and in it the relation of God and man, as unity and community of
   essence, the Arian doctrine on the contrary has the opposite aim of a
   separation by which, first Father and Son, and then God and man, are
   placed in the abstract opposition of infinite and finite. While,
   therefore, according to Athanasius, Christianity is the religion of the
   unity of God and man, according to Arius the essence of the Christian
   revelation can consist only in man's becoming conscious of the
   difference which separates him, with all the finite, from the absolute
   being of God. What value, however, one must ask, has such a
   Christianity, when, instead of bringing man nearer to God, it only
   fixes the chasm between God and man?" [1349]

   Arianism was a religious political war against the spirit of the
   Christian revelation by the spirit of the world, which, after having
   persecuted the church three hundred years from without, sought under
   the Christian name to reduce her by degrading Christ to the category of
   the temporal and the created, and Christianity to the level of natural
   religion. It substituted for a truly divine Redeemer, a created
   demigod, an elevated Hercules. Arianism proceeded from human reason,
   Athanasianism from divine revelation; and each used the other source of
   knowledge as a subordinate and tributary factor. The former was deistic
   and rationalistic, the latter theistic and supernaturalistic, in spirit
   and effect. The one made reasonableness, the other agreement with
   Scripture, the criterion of truth. In the one the intellectual
   interest, in the other the moral and religious, was the motive
   principle. Yet Athanasius was at the same time a much deeper and abler
   thinker than Arius, who dealt in barren deductions of reason and
   dialectic formulas. [1350]

   In close connection with this stood another distinction. Arianism
   associated itself with the secular political power and the court party;
   it represented the imperio-papal principle, and the time of its
   prevalence under Constantius was an uninterrupted season of the most
   arbitrary and violent encroachments of the state upon the rights of the
   church. Athanasius, on the contrary, who was so often deposed by the
   emperor, and who uttered himself so boldly respecting Constantius, is
   the personal representative not only of orthodoxy, but also of the
   independence of the church with reference to the secular power, and in
   this respect a precursor of Gregory VII. in his contest with the German
   imperialism.

   While Arianism bent to the changing politics of the court party, and
   fell into diverse schools and sects the moment it lost the imperial
   support, the Nicene faith, like its great champion Athanasius, remained
   under all outward changes of fortune true to itself, and made its
   mighty advance only by legitimate growth outward from within.
   Athanasius makes no distinction at all between the various shades of
   Arians and Semi-Arians, but throws them all into the same category of
   enemies of the catholic faith. [1351]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1349] Die christliche Kirche vom 4-6ten Jahrhundert, 1859, p. 97 sq.

   [1350] Baur, Newman (The Arians, p. 17), and others put Arianism into
   connection with the Aristotelian philosophy, Athanasianism with the
   Platonic; while Petavius, Ritter, to some extent also Voigt (I. c. p.
   194), and others exactly reverse the relation, and derive the Arian
   idea of God from Platonism and Neo-Platonism. This contrariety of
   opinion itself proves that such a comparison is rather confusing than
   helpful. The empirical, rational, logical tendency of Arianism is, to
   be sure, more Aristotelian than Platonic; and so far Baur is right. But
   the Aristotelian logic and dialectics may be used equally well in the
   service of Catholic orthodoxy, as they were in fact in the mediaeval
   scholasticism; while, on the other hand, the Platonic idealism, which
   was to Justin, Origen, and Augustine, a bridge to faith, may lead into
   all kinds of Gnostic and mystic error. All depends on making revelation
   and faith, or philosophy and reason, the starting-point and the ruling
   power of the theological system. Comp. also the observations of Dr.
   Dorner against Dr. Baur, in his Entwicklungsgesch. der Christologie,
   vol. i. p. 859, note.

   [1351] I cannot refrain from quoting the striking judgment of George
   Bancroft, once a Unitarian preacher, on the import of the Arian
   controversy and the vast influence of the Athanasian doctrine on the
   onward march of true Christian civilization. "In vain," says he in his
   address on the Progress of the Human Race, delivered before the New
   York Historical Society in 1854, p. 25 f., "did restless pride, as that
   of Arius, seek to paganize Christianity and make it the ally of
   imperial despotism; to prefer a belief resting on authority and
   unsupported by an inward witness, over the clear revelation of which
   the millions might see and feel and know the divine glory; to
   substitute the conception, framed after the pattern of heathenism, of
   an agent, superhuman yet finite, for faith in the ever continuing
   presence of God with man; to wrong the greatness and sanctity of the
   Spirit of God by representing it as a birth of time. Against these
   attempts to subordinate the enfranchising virtue of truth to false
   worship and to arbitrary power reason asserted its supremacy, and the
   party of superstition was driven from the field. Then mooned Ashtaroth
   was eclipsed and Osiris was seen no more in Memphian grove; then might
   have been heard the crash of the falling temples of Polytheism; and
   instead of them, came that harmony which holds Heaven and Earth in
   happiest union. Amid the deep sorrows of humanity during the sad
   conflict which was protracted through centuries for the overthrow of
   the past and the reconstruction of society, the consciousness of an
   incarnate God carried peace into the bosom of mankind. That faith
   emancipated the slave, broke the bondage of woman, redeemed the
   captive, elevated the low, lifted up the oppressed, consoled the
   wretched, inspired alike the heroes of thought and the countless
   masses. The down-trodden nations clung to it as to the certainty of
   their future emancipation; and it so filled the heart of the greatest
   poet of the Middle Ages--perhaps the greatest poet of all time--that he
   had no prayer so earnest as to behold in the profound and clear
   substance of the eternal light, that circling of reflected glory which
   showed the image of man."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 124. Arianism.

   The doctrine of the Arians, or Eusebians, Aëtians, Eunomians, as they
   were called after their later leaders, or Exukontians, Heteroousiasts,
   and Anomoeans, as they were named from their characteristic terms, is
   in substance as follows:

   The Father alone is God; therefore he alone is unbegotten, eternal,
   wise, good, and unchangeable, and he is separated by an infinite chasm
   from the world. He cannot create the world directly, but only through
   an agent, the Logos. The Son of God is pre-existent, [1352] before all
   creatures, and above all creatures, a middle being between God and the
   world, the creator of the world, the perfect image of the Father, and
   the executor of his thoughts, and thus capable of being called in a
   metaphorical sense God, and Logos, and Wisdom. [1353] But on the other
   hand, he himself is a creature, that is to say, the first creation of
   God, through whom the Father called other creatures into existence; he
   was created out of nothing [1354] (not out of the essence of God) by
   the will of the Father before all conceivable time; he is therefore not
   eternal, but had a beginning, and there was a time when he was not.
   [1355]

   Arianism thus rises far above Ebionism, Socinianism, deism, and
   rationalism, in maintaining the personal pre-existence of the Son
   before all worlds, which were his creation; but it agrees with those
   systems in lowering the Son to the sphere of the created, which of
   course includes the idea of temporalness and finiteness. It at first
   ascribed to him the predicate of unchangeableness also, [1356] but
   afterwards subjected him to the vicissitudes of created being. [1357]
   This contradiction, however, is solved, if need be, by the distinction
   between moral and physical unchangeableness; the Son is in his nature
   (phusei) changeable, but remains good (kalos) by a free act of his
   will. Arius, after having once robbed the Son of divine essence, [1358]
   could not consistently allow him any divine attribute in the strict
   sense of the word; he limited his duration, his power, and his
   knowledge, and expressly asserted that the Son does not perfectly know
   the Father, and therefore cannot perfectly reveal him. The Son is
   essentially distinct from the Father, [1359] and--as Aëtius and
   Eunomius afterward more strongly expressed it--unlike the Father;
   [1360] and this dissimilarity was by some extended to all moral and
   metaphysical attributes and conditions. [1361] The dogma of the
   essential deity of Christ seemed to Arius to lead of necessity to
   Sabellianism or to the Gnostic dreams of emanation. As to the humanity
   of Christ, Arius ascribed to him only a human body, but not a rational
   soul, and on this point Apollinarius came to the same conclusion,
   though from orthodox premises, and with the intention of saving the
   unity of the divine personality of Christ.

   The later development of Arianism brought out nothing really new, but
   rather revealed many inconsistencies and contradictions. Thus, for
   example, Eunomius, to whom clearness was the measure of truth,
   maintained that revelation has made everything clear, and man can
   perfectly know God; while Arius denied even to the Son the perfect
   knowledge of God or of himself. The negative and rationalistic element
   came forth in ever greater prominence, and the controversy became a
   metaphysical war, destitute of all deep religion, spirit. The eighteen
   formulas of faith which Arianism and Semi-Arianism produced between the
   councils of Nice and Constantinople, are leaves without blossoms, and
   branches without fruit. The natural course of the Arian heresy is
   downward, through the stage of Socinianism, into the rationalism which
   sees in Christ a mere man, the chief of his kind.

   To pass now to the arguments used for and against this error:

   1. The Arians drew their exegetical proofs from the passages of
   Scripture which seem to place Christ in any way in the category of that
   which is created, [1362] or ascribe to the incarnate (not the
   pre-temporal, divine) Logos growth, lack of knowledge, weariness,
   sorrow, and other changing human affections and states of mind, [1363]
   or teach a subordination of the Son to the Father. [1364]

   Athanasius disposes of these arguments somewhat too easily, by
   referring the passages exclusively to the human side of the person of
   Jesus. When, for example, the Lord says he knows not the day, nor the
   hour of the judgment, this is due only to his human nature. For how
   should the Lord of heaven and earth, who made days and hours, not know
   them! He accuses the Arians of the Jewish conceit, that divine and
   human are incompatible. The Jews say How could Christ, if he were God,
   become man, and die on the cross? The Arians say: How can Christ, who
   was man, be at the same time God? We, says Athanasius, are Christians;
   we do not stone Christ when he asserts his eternal Godhead, nor are we
   offended in him when he speaks to us in the language of human poverty.
   But it is the peculiar doctrine of Holy Scripture to declare everywhere
   a double thing of Christ: that he, as Logos and image of the Father,
   was ever truly divine, and that he afterwards became man for our
   salvation. When Athanasius cannot refer such terms as "made,"
   "created," "became," to the human nature he takes them figuratively for
   "testified," "constituted," "demonstrated." [1365]

   As positive exegetical proofs against Arianism, Athanasius cites almost
   all the familiar proof-texts which ascribe to Christ divine names,
   divine attributes, divine works, and divine dignity, and which it is
   unnecessary here to mention in detail.

   Of course his exegesis, as well as that of the fathers in general, when
   viewed from the level of the modern grammatical, historical, and
   critical method, contains a great deal of allegorizing caprice and
   fancy and sophistical subtilty. But it is in general far more profound
   and true than the heretical.

   2. The theological arguments for Arianism were predominantly negative
   and rationalizing. The amount of them is, that the opposite view is
   unreasonable, is irreconcilable with strict monotheism and the dignity
   of God, and leads to Sabellian or Gnostic errors. It is true, Marcellus
   of Ancyra, one of the most zealous advocates of the Nicene
   homoousianism, fell into the Sabellian denial of the tri-personality,
   [1366] but most of the Nicene fathers steered with unerring tact
   between the Scylla of Sabellianism, and the Charybdis of Tritheism.

   Athanasius met the theological objections of the Arians with
   overwhelming dialectical skill, and exposed the internal contradictions
   and philosophical absurdities of their positions. Arianism teaches two
   gods, an uncreated and a created, a supreme and a secondary god, and
   thus far relapses into heathen polytheism. It holds Christ to be a mere
   creature, and yet the creator of the world; as if a creature could be
   the source of life, the origin and the end of all creatures! It
   ascribes to Christ a pre-mundane existence, but denies him eternity,
   while yet time belongs to the idea of the world, and is created only
   therewith, [1367] so that before the world there was nothing but
   eternity. It supposes a time before the creation of the pre-existent
   Christ; thus involving God himself in the notion of time; which
   contradicts the absolute being of God. It asserts the unchangeableness
   of God, but denies, with the eternal generation of the Son, also the
   eternal Fatherhood; thus assuming after all a very essential change in
   God. [1368] Athanasius charges the Arians with dualism and heathenism,
   and he accuses them of destroying the whole doctrine of salvation. For
   if the Son is a creature, man remains still separated, as before, from
   God; no creature can redeem other creatures, and unite them with God.
   If Christ is not divine, much less can we be partakers of the divine
   nature and children of God. [1369]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1352] Pro chronon kai aionon.

   [1353] Theos, logos , sophia.

   [1354] Poiema, ktisma ex ouk onton. Hence the name Exukontians

   [1355] Archen echei --ouk en prin gennethe, etoi ktisthe --en pote hote
   ouk en.

   [1356] Analloiotos, atreptos ho huios.

   [1357] Treptos phusei hos ta krismata.

   [1358] ousia

   [1359] Heteroousios to patri.

   [1360] Anomoios kata ousian. Hence the name Anomoioi, Anomoeans.

   [1361] Anomoios kata panta..

   [1362] Such as Prov. viii. 22-25 (Comp. Sir. i. 4; xxiv. 8f.), where
   personified Wisdom, i.e., the Logos, says (according to the
   Septuagint): Kurios ektisen me [Heb. qnny Vulg. possedit me] archen
   hodon autou eis erga autou; pro tou aionos ethemeliosen me, k.t.l.This
   passage seemed clearly to prove the two propositions of Arius, that the
   Father created the Son, and that he created him for the purpose of
   creating the world through him (eis erga autou). Acts ii. 36: Hoti kai
   kurion auton kai Christon epoiesen ho theos.Heb. i. 4: Kreitton
   genomenos ton angelon. Heb. iii. 2: Piston onta to poiesanti auton.
   John i 14: Ho logos sarx egeneto. Phil. ii. 7-9. The last two passages
   are of course wholly inapposite, as they treat of the incarnation of
   the Son of God, not of his pre-temporal existence and essence. Heb. i.
   4 refers to the exaltation of the God-Man. Most plausible of all is the
   famous passage: prototokos pases ktiseos, Col. i. 15, from which the
   Arians inferred that Christ himself is a ktisis of God, to wit, the
   first creature of all. But prototokosis not equivalent to
   protoktistosor protoplastos: on the contrary, Christ is by this very
   term distinguished from the creation, and described as the Author,
   Upholder, and End of the creation. A creature cannot possibly be the
   source of life for all creatures. The meaning of the expression,
   therefore, is: born before every creature, i.e., before anything was
   made. The text indicates the distinction between the eternal generation
   of the Son from the essence of the Father, and the temporal creation of
   the world out of nothing by the Son. Yet there is a difference between
   monogenesand prototokos , which Athanasius himself makes: the former
   referring to the relation of the Son to the Father, the latter, to his
   relation to the world.

   [1363] Such as Luke ii. 52; Heb. v. 8, 9; John xii. 27, 28; Matt. xxvi.
   39; Mark xii. 52; &c.

   [1364] E.g., John xiv. 28: Ho pater meizon mou estin.. This passage
   also refers not to the pre-existent state of Christ, but to the state
   of humiliation of the God-Man.

   [1365] The ektiseand ethemeliose in Prov. viii. 22 ff., on which the
   Arians laid special stress, and of which Athanasius treats quite at
   large in his second oration against the Arians, he refers not to the
   essence of the Logos (with whom the sophiawas by both parties
   identified), but to the incarnation of the Logos and to the renovation
   of our race through him: appealing to Eph. ii. 10: "We are his
   workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." As to the far
   more important passage in Col. i. 15, Athanasius gives substantially
   the correct interpretation in his Expositio fidei, cap. 3 (ed. Bened.
   tom. i. 101), where he says: prototokon eipon [Paulos] deloi me einai
   auton ktisma, alla gennema tou patros ; xenon gar epi tes theotetos
   autou to legesthai ktisma. Ta gar panta ektisthesan hupo tou patros dia
   tou huiou, ho de huios monos ek tou patros aidios egennethe; dio
   prototokos esti pases ktiseos ho Theos logos ;, atreptos ex atreptou.

   [1366] Comp. on Marcellus of Ancyra below, § 126.

   [1367] Mundus non factus est in tempore, sed cum tempore, says
   Augustine, although I cannot just now lay my hand on the passage. Time
   is the successional form of existence of all created things. Now Arius
   might indeed have said: Time arose with the Son as the first creature.
   This, however, he did not say, but put a time before the Son.

   [1368] Of less weight is the objection, which was raised by Alexander
   of Alexandria: Since the Son is the Logos, the Arian God must have
   been, until the creation of the Son, alogos, a being without reason.

   [1369] Comp. the second Oration against the Arians, cap. 69 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 125. Semi-Arianism.

   The Semi-Arians, [1370] or, as they are called, the Homoiousiasts,
   [1371] wavered in theory and conduct between the Nicene orthodoxy and
   the Arian heresy. Their doctrine makes the impression, not of an
   internal reconciliation of opposites which in fact were irreconcilable,
   but of diplomatic evasion, temporizing compromise, flat, half and half
   juste milieu. They had a strong footing in the subordination of most of
   the ante-Nicene fathers; but now the time for clear and definite
   decision had come.

   Their doctrine is contained in the confession which was proposed to the
   council of Nicaea by Eusebius of Caesarea, but rejected, and in the
   symbols of the councils of Antioch and Sirmium from 340 to 360.
   Theologically they were best represented first by Eusebius of Caesarea,
   who adhered more closely to his admired Origen, and later by Cyril of
   Jerusalem, who approached nearer the orthodoxy of the Nicene party.

   The signal term of Semi-Arianism is homoi-ousion, in distinction from
   homo-ousion and hetero-ousion. The system teaches that Christ if; not a
   creature, but co-eternal with the Father, though not of the same, but
   only of like essence, and subordinate to him. It agrees with the Nicene
   creed in asserting the eternal generation of the Son, and in denying
   that he was a created being; while, with Arianism, it denies the
   identity of essence. Hence it satisfied neither of the opposite
   parties, and was charged by both with logical incoherence. Athanasius
   and his friends held, against the Semi-Arians, that like attributes and
   relations might be spoken of, but not like essences or substances;
   these are either identical or different. It may be said of one man that
   he is like another, not in respect of substance, but in respect of his
   exterior and form. If the Son, as the Semi-Arians ad-mit, is of the
   essence of the Father, he must be also of the same essence. The Arians
   argued: There is no middle being between created and uncreated being;
   if God the Father alone is uncreated, everything out of him, including
   the Son, is created, and consequently of different essence, and unlike
   him.

   Thus pressed from both sides, Semi-Arianism could not long withstand;
   and even before the council of Constantinople it passed over, in the
   main, to the camp of orthodoxy. [1372]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1370] Hemiareioi.

   [1371] Homoiousiastoi. The name Eusebians is used of the Arians and
   Semi-Arians, who both for a time made common cause, as a political
   party under the lead of Eusebius of Nicomedia (not of Caesarea),
   against the Athanasians and Nicenes.

   [1372] Bull judges Semi-Arianisn very contemptuously."Semi-AriAnus,"
   says he (l. iv. 4, 8, vol. v. pars ii p. 779), "et semi-Deus, et
   semi-creatura perinde monstra et portenta sunt quae sani et pii omnes
   merito exhorrent. Filius Dei aut verus omnino Deus, aut mera creatura
   statuatur necesse est; aeternae veritatis axioma est inter Deum et
   creaturam, inter non factum et factum, medium esse nihil." Quite
   similarly Waterland: A Defence of some Queries relating to Dr. Clarke's
   Scheme of the Holy Trinity, Works, vol. i p. 404.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 126. Revived Sabellianism. Marcellus and Photinus.

   I. Eusebius Caesar.: Two books contra Marcellum (kata Markellou), and
   three books De ecclesiastica theologia (after his Demonstratio evang.).
   Hilary: Fragmenta, 1-3. Basil the Great: Epist. 52. Epiphanius: Haeres.
   72. Retberg: Marcelliana. Gött. 1794 (a collection of the Fragments of
   Marcellus).

   II. Montfaucon: Diatribe de causa Marcelli Ancyr. (in Collect. nova
   Patr. tom. ii. Par. 1707). Klose: Geschichte u. Lehre des Marcellus u.
   Photinus. Hamb. 1837. Möhler: Athanasius der Gr. Buch iv. p. 318 sqq.
   (aiming to vindicate Marcellus, as Neander also does). Baur: l.c. vol.
   i. pp. 525-558. Dorner: l.c. i. pp. 864-882. (Both against the
   orthodoxy of Marcellus.) Hefele: Conciliengesch. i. 456 sq. et passim.
   Willenborg: Ueber die Orthodoxie des Marc. Münster, 1859

   Before we pass to the exhibition of the orthodox doctrine, we must
   notice a trinitarian error which arose in the course of the controversy
   from an excess of zeal against the Arian subordination, and forms the
   opposite extreme.

   Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, a friend of Athanasius, and one
   of the leaders of the Nicene party, in a large controversial work
   written soon after the council of Nicaea against Arianism and
   Semi-Arianism, so pushed the doctrine of the consubstantiality of
   Christ that he impaired the personal distinction of Father and Son,
   and, at least in phraseology, fell into a refined form of Sabellianism.
   [1373] To save the full divinity of Christ and his equality with the
   Father, he denied his hypostatical pre-existence. As to the orthodoxy
   of Marcellus, however, the East and the West were divided, and the
   diversity continues even among modem scholars. A Semi-Arian council in
   Constantinople, a.d. 335, deposed him, and intrusted Eusebius of
   Caesarea with the refutation of his work; while, on the contrary, pope
   Julius of Rome and the orthodox council of Sardica (343), blinded by
   his equivocal declarations, his former services, and his close
   connection with Athanasius, protected his orthodoxy and restored him to
   his bishopric. The counter-synod of Philippopolis, however, confirmed
   the condemnation. Finally even Athanasius, who elsewhere always speaks
   of him with great respect, is said to have declared against him. [1374]
   The council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, declared even the baptism of
   the Marcellians and Photinians invalid. [1375]

   Marcellus wished to hold fast the true deity of Christ without falling
   under the charge of subordinatianism. He granted the Arians right in
   their assertion that the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of
   the Son involves the subordination of the Son, and is incompatible with
   his own eternity. For this reason he entirely gave up this doctrine,
   and referred the expressions: Son, image, firstborn, begotten, not to
   the eternal metaphysical relation, but to the incarnation. He thus made
   a rigid separation between Logos and Son, and this is the proton
   pseudosof this system. Before the incarnation there was, he taught, no
   Son of God, but only a Logos, and by that he understood,--at least so
   he is represented by Eusebius,--an impersonal power, a reason inherent
   in God, inseparable from him, eternal, unbegotten, after the analogy of
   reason in man. This Logos was silent (therefore without word) in God
   before the creation of the world, but then went forth out of God as the
   creative word and power, the drastike energeia praxeos of God (not as a
   hypostasis). This power is the principle of creation, and culminates in
   the incarnation, but after finishing the work of redemption returns
   again into the repose of God. The Son, after completing the work of
   redemption, resigns his kingdom to the Father, and rests again in God
   as in the beginning. The sonship, therefore, is only a temporary state,
   which begins with the human advent of Christ, and is at last promoted
   or glorified into Godhead. Marcellus reaches not a real God-Man, but
   only an extraordinary dynamical indwelling of the divine power in the
   man Jesus. In this respect the charge of Samosatenism, which the
   council of Constantinople in 335 brought against him, has a certain
   justice, though he started from premises entirely different from those
   of Paul of Samosata. [1376] His doctrine of the Holy Spirit and of the
   Trinity is to a corresponding degree unsatisfactory. He speaks, indeed,
   of an extension of the indivisible divine monad into a triad, but in
   the Sabellian sense, and denies the three hypostases or persons.

   Photinus, first a deacon at Ancyra, then bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia,
   went still further than his preceptor Marcellus. He likewise started
   with a strict distinction between the notion of Logos and Son, [1377]
   rejected the idea of eternal generation, and made the divine in Christ
   an impersonal power of God. But while Marcellus, from the Sabellian
   point of view, identified the Son with the Logos as to essence, and
   transferred to him the divine predicates attaching to the Logos,
   Photinus, on the contrary, quite like Paul of Samosata, made Jesus rise
   on the basis of his human nature, by a course of moral improvement and
   moral merit, to the divine dignity, so that the divine in him is a
   thing of growth.

   Hence Photinus was condemned as a heretic by several councils in the
   East and in the West, beginning with the Semi-Arian council at Antioch
   in 344. He died in exile in 366. [1378]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1373] In his work peri hupotages, De subjectione Domini Christi,
   founded on 1 Cor. xv. 28.

   [1374] Hilary, Fragm. ii. n. 21 (p. 1299, ed. Bened.), states that
   Athanasius as early as 349 renounced church fellowship with Marcellus.

   [1375] These are meant by the hoi apo tes Galaton choras erchomenoiin
   the 7th canon of the second ecumenical council. Marcellus and Photinus
   were both of Ancyra in Galatia. Comp. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol.
   ii. p. 26.

   [1376] Dorner (l.c. 880 sq.) asserts of Marcellus, that his
   Sabellianism ran out to a sort of Ebionitism.

   [1377] He called God logopater, because, in his view, God is both
   Father and Logos. Sabellius had used the expression huiopater, to deny
   the personal distinction between the Father and the Son. Photinus had
   to say instead of this, logopater, because, in his view, the logos, not
   the huios, is eternally in God.

   [1378] Comp. on Photinus, Athanas., De syn. 26; Epiph., Haer. 71;
   Hilary, De trinit. vii. 3-7, etc.; Baur, l.c. vol. i. p. 542 sqq.;
   Dorner, l.c. i. p. 881 sq.; and Hefele, l.c, i. p. 610 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 127. The Nicene Doctrine of the Consubstantiality of the Son with the
   Father.

   Comp. the literature in §§ 119 and 120, especially the four Orations of
   Athanasius against the Arians, and the other anti-Arian tracts of this
   "father of orthodoxy."

   The Nicene, Homo-ousian, or Athanasian doctrine was most clearly and
   powerfully represented in the East by Athanasius, in whom it became
   flesh and blood; [1379] and next to him, by Alexander of Alexandria,
   Marcellus of Ancyra (who however strayed into Sabellianism), Basil, and
   the two Gregories of Cappadocia; and in the West by Ambrose and Hilary.

   The central point of the Nicene doctrine in the contest with Arianism
   is the identity of essence or the consubstantiality of the Son with the
   Father, and is expressed in this article of the (original) Nicene
   Creed: "[We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; who is
   begotten the only-begotten of the Father; that is, of the essence of
   the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God,
   begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." [1380]

   The term homoousios, consubstantial, is of course no more a biblical
   term, [1381] than trinity; [1382] but it had already been used, though
   in a different sense, both by heathen writers [1383] and by heretics,
   [1384] as well as by orthodox fathers. [1385] It formed a bulwark
   against Arians and Semi-Arians, and an anchor which moored the church
   during the stormy time between the first and the second ecumenical
   councils. [1386] At first it had a negative meaning against heresy;
   denying, as Athanasius repeatedly says, that the Son is in any sense
   created or produced and changeable. [1387] But afterwards the
   homoousion became a positive testword of orthodoxy, designating, in the
   sense of the Nicene council, clearly and unequivocally, the veritable
   and essential deity of Christ, in opposition to all sorts of apparent
   or half divinity, or mere similarity to God. The same divine, eternal,
   unchangeable essence, which is in an original way in the Father, is,
   from eternity, in a derived way, through generation, in the Son; just
   as the water of the fountain is in the stream, or the light of the sun
   is in the ray, and cannot be separated from it. Hence the Lord says: "I
   am in the Father, and the Father in Me; He that hath seen Me hath seen
   the Father; I and My Father are one." This is the sense of the
   expression: "God of God," "very God of very God." Christ, in His divine
   nature, is as fully consubstantial with the Father, as, in His human
   nature, He is with man; flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone; and
   yet, with all this, He is an independent person with respect to the
   Father, as He is with respect to other men. In this view Basil turns
   the term homoousiosagainst the Sabellian denial of the personal
   distinctions in the Trinity, since it is not the same thing that is
   consubstantial with itself, but one thing that is consubstantial with
   another. [1388] Consubstantiality among men, indeed, is predicated of
   different individuals who partake of the same nature, and the term in
   this view might denote also unity of species in a tritheistic sense.

   But in the case before us the personal distinction of the Son from the
   Father must not be pressed to a duality of substances of the same kind;
   the homoousion, on the contrary, must be understood as identity or
   numerical unity of substance, in distinction from mere generic unity.
   Otherwise it leads manifestly into dualism or tritheism. The Nicene
   doctrine refuses to swerve from the monotheistic basis, and stands
   between Sabellianism and tritheism; though it must be admitted that the
   usage of ousiaand hupostasis?still wavered for a time, and the relation
   of the consubstantiality to the numerical unity of the divine essence
   did not come clearly out till a later day. Athanasius insists that the
   unity of the divine essence is indivisible, and that there is only one
   principle of Godhead. [1389] He frequently illustrates the relation) as
   Tertullian had done before him, by the relation between fire and
   brightness, [1390] or between fountain and stream; though in these
   illustrations the proverbial insufficiency of all similitudes must
   never be forgotten. "We must not," says he, "take the words in John
   xiv. 10: 'I am in the Father and the Father in Me' as if the Father and
   the Son were two different interpenetrating and mutually complemental
   substances, like two bodies which fill one vessel. The Father is full
   and perfect, and the Son is the fulness of the Godhead." [1391] "We
   must not imagine," says he in another place, "three divided substances
   [1392] in God, as among men, lest we, like the heathen, invent a
   multiplicity of gods; but as the stream which is born of the fountain,
   and not separated from it, though there are two forms and names.
   Neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father; for the Father
   is the Father of the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father. As the
   fountain is not the stream, nor the stream the fountain, but the two
   are one and the same water which flows from the fountain into the
   stream; so the Godhead pours itself, without division, from the Father
   into the Son. Hence the Lord says: I went forth from the Father, and
   come from the Father. Yet He is ever with the Father, He is in the
   bosom of the Father, and the bosom of the Father is never emptied of
   the Godhead of the Son." [1393]

   The Son is of the essence of the Father, not by division or diminution,
   but by simple and perfect self-communication. This divine
   self-communication of eternal love is represented by the figure of
   generation, suggested by the biblical terms Father and Son, the
   only-begotten Son, the firstborn. [1394] The eternal generation is an
   internal process in the essence of God, and the Son is an immanent
   offspring of this essence; whereas creation is an act of the will of
   God, and the creature is exterior to the Creator, and of different
   substance. The Son, as man, is produced; [1395] as God, he is
   unproduced or uncreated; [1396] he is begotten [1397] from eternity of
   the unbegotten [1398] Father. To this Athanasius refers the passage
   concerning the Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father. [1399]

   Generation and creation are therefore entirely different ideas.
   Generation is an immanent, necessary, and perpetual process in the
   essence of God himself, the Father's eternal communication of essence
   or self to the Son; creation, on the contrary, is an outwardly
   directed, free, single act of the will of God, bringing forth a
   different and temporal substance out of nothing. The eternal fatherhood
   and sonship in God is the perfect prototype of all similar relations on
   earth. But the divine generation differs from all human generation, not
   only in its absolute spirituality, but also in the fact that it does
   not produce a new essence of the same kind, but that the begotten is
   identical in essence with the begetter; for the divine essence is by
   reason of its simplicity, incapable of division, and by reason of its
   infinity, incapable of increase. [1400] The generation, properly
   speaking, has no reference at all to the essence, but only to the
   hypostatical distinction. The Son is begotten not as God, but as Son,
   not as to his natura, but as to his idiotes, his peculiar property and
   his relation to the Father. The divine essence neither begets, nor is
   begotten. The same is true of the processio of the Holy Ghost, which
   has reference not to the essence, but only to the person, of the
   Spirit. In human generation, moreover, the father is older than the
   son; but in the divine generation, which takes place not in time, but
   is eternal, there can be no such thing as priority or posteriority of
   one or the other hypostasis. To the question whether the Son existed
   before his generation, Cyril of Alexandria answered: "The generation of
   the Son did not precede his existence, but he existed eternally, and
   eternally existed by generation." The Son is as necessary to the being
   of the Father, as the Father to the being of the Son.

   The necessity thus asserted of the eternal generation does not,
   however, impair its freedom, but is intended only to deny its being
   arbitrary and accidental, and to secure its foundation in the essence
   of God himself. God, to be Father, must from eternity beget the Son,
   and so reproduce himself; yet he does this in obedience not to a
   foreign law, but to his own law and the impulse of his will.
   Athanasius, it is true, asserts on the one hand that God begets the Son
   not of his will, [1401] but by his nature, [1402] yet on the other hand
   he does not admit that God begets the Son without will, [1403] or of
   force or unconscious necessity. The generation, therefore, rightly
   understood, is an act at once of essence and of will. Augustine calls
   the Son "will of will." [1404] In God freedom and necessity coincide.

   The mode of the divine generation is and must be a mystery. Of course
   all human representations of it must be avoided, and the matter be
   conceived in a purely moral and spiritual way. The eternal generation,
   conceived as an intellectual process, is the eternal self-knowledge of
   God; reduced to ethical terms, it is his eternal and absolute love in
   its motion and working within himself.

   In his argument for the consubstantiality of the Son, Athanasius, in
   his four orations against the Arians, besides adducing the proof from
   Scripture, which presides over and permeates all other arguments, sets
   out now in a practical method from the idea of redemption, now in a
   speculative, from the idea of God.

   Christ has delivered us from the curse and power of sin, reconciled us
   with God, and made us partakers of the eternal, divine life; therefore
   he must himself be God. Or, negatively: If Christ were a creature, he
   could not redeem other creatures from sin and death. It is assumed that
   redemption is as much and as strictly a divine work, as creation.
   [1405]

   Starting from the idea of God, Athanasius argues: The relation of
   Father is not accidental, arising in time; else God would be
   changeable; [1406] it belongs as necessarily to the essence and
   character of God as the attributes of eternity, wisdom, goodness, and
   holiness; consequently he must have been Father from eternity, and this
   gives the eternal generation of the Son. [1407] The divine fatherhood
   and sonship is the prototype of all analagous relations on earth. As
   there is no Son without Father, no more is there Father without Son. An
   unfruitful Father were like a dark light, or a dry fountain, a
   self-contradiction. The non-existence of creatures, on the contrary,
   detracts nothing from the perfection of the Creator, since he always
   has the power to create when he will. [1408] The Son is of the Father's
   own interior essence, while the creature is exterior to God and
   dependent on the act of his will. [1409] God, furthermore, cannot be
   conceived without reason (alogos), wisdom, power, and according to the
   Scriptures (as the Arians themselves concede) the Son is the Logos, the
   wisdom, the power, the Word of God, by which all things were made. As
   light rises from fire, and is inseparable from it, so the Word from
   God, the Wisdom from the Wise, and the Son from the Father. [1410] The
   Son, therefore, was in the beginning, that is, in the beginning of the
   eternal divine being, in the original beginning, or from eternity. He
   himself calls himself one with the Father, and Paul praises him as God
   blessed forever. [1411]

   Finally Christ cannot be a proper object of worship, as he is
   represented in Scripture and has always been regarded in the Church,
   without being strictly divine. To worship a creature is idolatry.

   When we attentively peruse the warm, vigorous, eloquent, and
   discriminating controversial writings of Athanasius and his
   co-laborers, and compare with them the vague, barren, almost entirely
   negative assertions and superficial arguments of their opponents, we
   cannot escape the impression that, with all their exegetical and
   dialectical defects in particulars, they have on their side an
   overwhelming preponderance of positive truth, the authority of holy
   Scripture, the profounder speculations of reason, and the prevailing
   traditional faith of the early church. [1412]

   The spirit and tendency of the Nicene doctrine is edifying; it
   magnifies Christ and Christianity. The Arian error is cold and
   heartless, degrades Christ to the sphere of the creature, and endeavors
   to substitute a heathen deification of the creature for the true
   worship of God. For this reason also the faith in the true and
   essential deity of Christ has to this day an inexhaustible vitality,
   while the irrational Arian fiction of a half-deity, creating the world
   and yet himself created, long ago entirely outlived itself. [1413]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1379] Particularly distinguished are his four Orations against the
   Arians, written in 356.

   [1380] Kai eis hena Kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion tou Theou;
   gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene; tout estin ek tes ousias tou
   Patros, Theon ek Theou kai phos ek photos, Theon alethinon ek Theou
   alethinou; gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to Patri, k.t.l.

   [1381] Though John's Theos hen ho logos (John i. 1), and Paul's to
   heinai isa Theo (Phil. ii. 6), are akin to it. The latter passage,
   indeed, since i1sa is adverbial, denotes rather divine existence, than
   divine being or essence, which would be more correctly expressed by to
   heinai ison Theo?, or by isotheos. But the latter would be equally in
   harmony with Paul's theology. The Jews used the masc. isos, though in a
   polemical sense, when they drew from the way in which he called himself
   preeminently and exclusively the Son of God the logical inference, that
   he made himself equal with God, John v. 18: Hoti ... patera idion elege
   ton Theon, ison heauton poion to Theo. The Vulgate translates: aequalem
   se faciens Deo.

   [1382] The word triasand trinitas, in this application to the Godhead,
   appears first in Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras in the second
   century, and in Tertullianin the third. Confessions of faith must be
   drawn up in language different from the Scriptures--else they mean
   nothing or everything--since they are an interpretation of the
   Scriptures and intended to exclude false doctrines.

   [1383] Bull, Def. fidei Nic., Works, vol. v. P. i. p. 70: " Homoousion
   a probatis Graecis scriptoribus id dicitur, quod ejusdem cum altero
   substantiae, essentiae, sive naturae est." He then cites some passages
   from profane writers. Thus Porphyry says, De abstinentia ab esu
   animalium, lib. i. n. 19: Eige homoousioi hoi ton zoon psuchai
   hemeterais, i.e., siquidem animae animalium sunt ejusdem cum nostris
   essentiae. Aristotle (in a quotation in Origen) speaks of the
   consubstantiality of all stars, homoousia panta astra, omnia astra sunt
   ejusdem essentiae sive naturae.

   [1384] First by the Gnostic Valentine, in Irenaeus, Adv. haer. l. i.
   cap. 1, § 1 and § 5(ed. Stieren, vol. i. 67 and 66). In the last
   passage it is said of man that he is hulikos, and as such very like
   God, indeed, but not consubstantial, paraplesion men, all ouch
   homoousion to Theo. The Manichaeans called the human soul, in the sense
   of their emanation system, homoousion to. Theo. Agapius, in Photius
   (Bibl. Cod. 179), calls even the sun and the moon, in a pantheistic
   sense, homoousia Theo. The Sabellinas used the word of the trinity, but
   in opposition to the distinction of persons.

   [1385] Origen deduces from the figurative description apaugasma, Heb.
   i. 3, the homoousion of the Son. His disciples rejected the term,
   indeed, at the council at Antioch in 264, because the heretical Paul of
   Samosata gave it a perverted meaning, taking oujsiva for the common
   source from which the three divine persons first derived their being.
   But towards the end of the third century the word was introduced again
   into church use by Theognostus and Dionysius of Alexandria, as
   Athanasius, De Decr. Syn. Nic. c. 25 (ed. Bened. i. p. 230),
   demonstrates. Eusebius, Ep. ad Caesarienses c. 7 (in Socr. H. E. i. 8,
   and in Athan. Opera i. 241), says that some early bishops and authors,
   learned and celebrated (ton palaion tinas logious kai epiphaneis
   epistopous kai sungrapheis ), used homoousion of the Godhead of the
   Father and Son. Tertullian(Adv. Prax.) applied the corresponding Latin
   phrase unius substantiae to the persons of the holy Trinity.

   [1386] Cunningham (Hist. Theology, i. p. 291) says of homoousios: " The
   number of these individuals who held the substance of the Nicene
   doctrine, but objected to the phraseology in which it was expressed,
   was very small [?]--and the evil thereof, was very inconsiderable;
   while the advantage was invaluable that resulted from the possession
   and the use of a definite phraseology, which shut out all supporters of
   error, combined nearly all the maintainers of truth, and formed a
   rallying-point around which the whole orthodox church ultimately
   gathered, after the confusion and distinction occasioned by Arian
   cunning and Arian persecution had passed away."

   [1387] Athanas. Epist. de Decretis Syn. Nicaenae, cap. 20 (i. p. 226);
   c. 26 (p. 231); and elsewhere.

   [1388] Basil. M. Epist. lii. 3 (tom. iii. 146): Aute de he phone kai to
   tou Sabelliou kakon epanorthoutai; anairei gar ten tautoteta tes
   hupostaseos kai eisagei taleian ton prosopon ten ennoian: (tollit enim
   hypostaseos identitatem perfectamque personarum notionem inducit) ou
   gar auto ti estin heauto homoousion, all heteron hetero (non enim idem
   sibi ipsi consubstantiale est, sed alterun alteri).

   [1389] Orat. iv. contra Arianos, c. 1 (tom. i. p. 617): HuOste duo men
   heinai patera kai huion, monada de theotetos adiaireton kai aschiston
   ... mia arche theotetos kai ou duo archai, hothen kurios kai monarchia
   estin.

   [1390] E.g., Orat. iv. c. Arianos, c. 10 (p. 624): Esto de paradeigma
   anthropinon to pur kai to ex autou apaugasma (ignes et splendor ex eo
   ortus), Duo men to einai [this is not accurate, and strictly taken
   would lead to two ousiai] kai horasthai, hen de to ex autou kai
   adiaireton einai to apaugasma autou.

   [1391] 0rat. iii. c. Arian. c. 1 (p. 551): Pleres kai teleios estin ho
   pater, kai pleroma theotetos estin ho Huios .

   [1392] Treis hupostaseis [here, as often in the Nicene age, synonymous
   with ousiai] memerismenas kath heautas. Athan. Expos. Fidei or Ekthesis
   pisteos, cap. 2 (Opera, ed. Bened. i. p. 100).

   [1393] Expositio Fidei, cap. 2: Hos gar ouk estin he pege potamos ,
   oude ho potamos pege, amphotera de hen kai tauton estin hudor to ek tes
   peges metecheuomenon, houtos he ek tou patros eis ton huion theotes
   arrheustos kai adiairetos tunchanei, k.t.l.

   [1394] Pater, huios, monogenes huios(frequent in John), prototokos
   pases ktiseos(Col. i. 15). Waterland (Works, i. p. 368) says of this
   point of the Nicene doctrine, "that an explicit profession of eternal
   generation might have been dispensed with: provided only that the
   eternal existence of the logos. as a real subsisting person, in and of
   the Father, which comes to the same thing, might be secured. This was
   the point; and this was all."

   [1395] Genetos(not to be confounded with gennetos), poietos, factus.
   Comp. John i. 14: Ho logos sarx egeneto.

   [1396] Agenetos, ou poietheis, non-factus, increatus; not to be
   confounded with agennetos, non-genitus, which belongs to the Father
   alone.

   [1397] Gennetos, or, as in the Symb. Nic. gennetheis, genitus.

   [1398] Agennetos, non-genitus. This terminology is very frequent in the
   writings of Athanasius, especially in the Orat. i. contra Arianos, and
   in his Epist. de decretis Syn. Nic.

   [1399] John i. 18: Ho monogenes huios , ho on (a perpetual or eternal
   relation, not hen) eis(motion, in distinction from en) ton k'olpon tou
   patros. Comp. Athanas. Epist. de decr. S. N. c. 22 (tom. i. p. 227): Ti
   gar allo to en kolpois semainei, he ten gnesian ek tou patros tou huiou
   gennesin?

   [1400] Bishop John Pearson, in his well-known work: An Exposition of
   the Creed (Art. ii. p. 209, ed. W. S. Dobson, New York, 1851), thus
   clearly and rightly exhibits the Nicene doctrine in this point: "In
   human generations the son is of the same nature with the father, and
   yet is not the same man; because though he has an essence of the same
   kind, yet he has not the same essence; the power of generation
   depending on the first prolifical benediction, increase and multiply,
   it must be made by way of multiplication, and thus every son becomes
   another man. But the divine essence, being by reason of its simplicity
   not subject to division, and in respect of its infinity incapable of
   multiplication, is so communicated as not to be multiplied; insomuch
   that he who proceeds by that communication, has not only the same
   nature, but is also the same God. The Father God, and the Word God;
   Abraham man and Isaac man: but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not
   so the Father one God and the Word another, but the Father and the Word
   both the same God."

   [1401] Me ek bouleseos.

   [1402] Phusei.

   [1403] Abouletos and atheletos.

   [1404] Voluntas de voluntate. De trinit. xv. 20.

   [1405] Comp. particularly the second oration contra Arianos, c. 69 sqq.

   [1406] Orat. i. contra Arianos, c. 28 (p. 433): Dia touto aei pater kai
   ouk epigegone (accidit) to Theo to pater, hina me kai treptos einai
   nomisthe. Ei gar kalon to einai auton patera, ouk aei de en pater, ouk
   aei ara to kalon en auto. Though to this it might be objected that by
   the incarnation of the Logos and the permanent reception of human
   nature into fellowship with the divine, a certain change has passed,
   after all, upon the deity.

   [1407] Orat. ii. c. Arianos, c. 1 sqq. (p. 469 sqq.); Orat. iii. c. 66
   (p. 615), and elsewhere.

   [1408] This last argument, in the formally logical point of view, may
   not be perfectly valid; for there may as well be a distinction between
   an ideal and real fatherhood, as between an ideal and real creatorship;
   and, on the other hand, one might reason with as good right backwards
   from the notion of essential omnipotence to an eternal creation, and
   say with Hegel: Without the world God is not God. But from the
   speculative and ethical point of view a difference must unquestionably
   be admitted, and an element of truth be acknowledged in the argument of
   Athanasius. The Father needed the Son for his own self-consciousness,
   which is inconceivable without an object. God is essentially love, and
   this realizes itself in the relation of Father and Son, and in the
   fellowship of the Spirit: Ubi amor ibi trinitas.

   [1409] Orat. i. c. 29 (p. 433): To poiema exothen tou poiountos estin
   ... ho de huios idion tes ousias gennema esti; dio kai to men poiema
   ouk ananke aei einai, hote gar bouletai ho demiourgos ergazetai, to de
   gennema ou boulesei hupokeitai, alla te's ousias estin idiotes .

   [1410] Comp. the 4th Oration against the Arians, cap. 1 sqq. (p. 617
   sqq.)

   [1411] The Theosin the well-known passage, Rom. ix. 6, is thus
   repeatedly by Athanasus, e.g., Orat. i. contra Arianos, c. 11; Orat.
   iv. c. 1, and by other fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen,
   Chrysostom), as well as by the Reformers and most of the orthodox
   expositors, referred to Christ. This interpretation, too, is most
   suitable to the connection, and in perfect harmony with the Christology
   of Paul, who sets forth Christ as the image of God, the possessor of
   the fulness of the divine life and glory, the object of worship (Phil.
   ii. 6; Col. i. 15 ff.; ii. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. v. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 16;
   Tit. ii. 13); and who therefore, as well as John, i. 1, could call him
   in the predicative sense Theos, i.e., of divine essence, in distinction
   from ho Theoswith the article.

   [1412] We say the prevailing faith; not denying that the theological
   knowledge and statement of the doctrine of the trinity had hitherto
   been in many respects indefinite and wavering. The learned bishop Bull,
   indeed, endeavored to prove, in opposition to the Jesuit Petavius, that
   the ante-Nicene fathers taught concerning the deity of the Son the very
   same things as the Nicene. Comp. the Preface to his Defensio fidei
   Nicaenae, ed. Burton, Oxf. 1827, vol. v. Pars. 1, p. ix.: "De summa
   rei, quam aliis persuadere volo, plane ipse, neque id temere, persuasus
   sum, nempe, quod de Filii divinitate contra Arium, idem re ipsa
   (quanquam aliis fortasse nonnunquam verbis, alioque loquendi modo)
   docuisse Patres ac doctores ecclesiae probatos ad unum omnes, qui ante
   tempora synodi Nicaenae, ab ipsa usque apostolorum aetate, floruerunt."
   But this assertion can be maintained only by an artificial and forced
   interpretation of many passages, and goes upon a mechanical and
   lifeless view of history. Comp. also the observations of W. Cunningham,
   Historical Theology, vol. i. p. 269 ff.

   [1413] Dorner, l.c. i. p. 883, justly says: "Not only to the mind of
   our time, but to all sound reason, does it seem absurd, nay,
   superstitious, that an under-god, a finite, created being, should be
   the creator."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 128. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

   The decision of Nicaea related primarily only to the essential deity of
   Christ. But in the wider range of the Arian controversies the deity of
   the Holy Ghost, which stands and falls with the deity of the Son, was
   indirectly involved. The church always, indeed, connected faith in the
   Holy Spirit with faith in the Father and Son, but considered the
   doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit as only an appendix to the doctrine
   concerning the Father and the Son, until the logical progress brought
   it to lay equal emphasis on the deity and personality of the Holy
   Ghost, and to place him with the Father and Son as an element of equal
   claim in the Trinity.

   The Arians made the Holy Ghost the first creature of the Son, and as
   subordinate to the Son as the Son to the Father. The Arian trinity was
   therefore not a trinity immanent and eternal, but arising in time and
   in descending grades, consisting of the uncreated God and two created
   demi-gods. The Semi-Arians here, as elsewhere, approached the orthodox
   doctrine, but rejected the consubstantiality, and asserted the
   creation, of the Spirit. Thus especially Macedonius, a moderate
   Semi-Arian, whom the Arian court-party had driven from the episcopal
   chair of Constantinople. From him the adherents of the false doctrine
   concerning the Holy Spirit, were, after 362, called Macedonians; [1414]
   also Pneumatomachi, [1415] and Tropici. [1416]

   Even among the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy an uncertainty still
   for a time prevailed respecting the doctrine of the third person of the
   Holy Trinity. Some held the Spirit to be an impersonal power or
   attribute of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the
   expressions of the Scriptures. Gregory Nazianzen, who for his own part
   believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the
   Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable concession:
   [1417] "Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an
   influence, others a creature, others God himself, [1418] and again
   others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for
   the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this
   reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy
   Ghost, [1419] and strike a middle course, which is in fact, however, a
   bad one." Basil, in 370, still carefully avoided calling the Holy Ghost
   God, though with the view of gaining the weak. Hilary of Poictiers
   believed that the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be
   divine, but could find no Scripture passage in which he is called God,
   and thought that he must be content with the existence of the Holy
   Ghost, which the Scripture teaches and the heart attests. [1420]

   But the church could not possibly satisfy itself with only two in one.
   The baptismal formula and the apostolic benediction, as well as the
   traditional trinitarian doxologies, put the Holy Ghost on an equality
   with the Father and the Son, and require a divine tri-personality
   resting upon a unity of essence. The divine triad tolerates in itself
   no inequality of essence, no mixture of Creator and creature.
   Athanasius well perceived this, and advocated with decision the
   consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachi or
   Tropici. [1421] Basil did the same, [1422] and Gregory of Nazianzum,
   [1423] Gregory of Nyssa, [1424] Didymus, [1425] and Ambrose. [1426]

   This doctrine conquered at the councils of Alexandria, a.d. 362, of
   Rome, 375, and finally of Constantinople, 381, and became an essential
   constituent of the ecumenical orthodoxy.

   Accordingly the Creed of Constantinople supplemented the Nicene with
   the important addition: "And in the Holy Ghost, who is Lord and Giver
   of life, who with the Father is worshipped and glorified, who spake by
   the prophets." [1427]

   This declares the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost, not indeed in
   words, yet in fact, and challenges for him divine dignity and worship.

   The exegetical proofs employed by the Nicene fathers for the deity of
   the Holy Ghost are chiefly the following. The Holy Ghost is nowhere in
   Scripture reckoned among creatures or angels, but is placed in God
   himself, co-eternal with God, as that which searches the depths of
   Godhead (1 Cor. ii. 11, 12). He fills the universe, and is everywhere
   present (Ps. cxxxix. 7), while creatures, even angels, are in definite
   places. He was active even in the creation (Gen. i. 3), and filled
   Moses and the prophets. From him proceeds the divine work of
   regeneration and sanctification (John iii. 5; Rom. i. 4; viii. 11; 1
   Cor. vi. 11; Tit. iii. 5-7; Eph. iii. 16; v. 17, 19, &c). He is the
   source of all gifts in the church (1 Cor. xii). He dwells in believers,
   like the Father and the Son, and makes them partakers of the divine
   life. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the extreme sin, which cannot
   be forgiven (Matt. xii. 31). Lying to the Holy Ghost is called lying to
   God (Acts v. 3, 4). In the formula of baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19), and
   likewise in the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. xiii. 13), the Holy Ghost
   is put on a level with the Father and the Son and yet distinguished
   from both; he must therefore be truly divine, yet at the same time a
   self-conscious person. [1428] The Holy Ghost is the source of
   sanctification, and unites us with the divine life, and thus must
   himself be divine. The divine trinity tolerates in itself nothing
   created and changeable. As the Son is begotten of the Father from
   eternity, so the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. (The
   procession of the Spirit from the Son, on the contrary, is a subsequent
   inference of the Latin church from the consubstantiality of the Son,
   and was unknown to the Nicene fathers.)

   The distinction between generation and procession is not particularly
   defined. Augustine calls both ineffable and inexplicable. [1429] The
   doctrine of the Holy Ghost was not in any respect so accurately
   developed in this period, as the doctrine concerning Christ, and it
   shows many gaps.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1414] Makedonianoi.

   [1415] Pneumatomachoi.

   [1416] Tropikoi. This name comes probably from their explaining as mere
   tropes (figurative expressions) or metaphors the passages of Scripture
   from which the orthodox derived the deity of the Holy Spirit. Comp.
   Athanas., Ad Serap. Ep. i. c. 2 (tom. i. Pars ii. p. 649).

   [1417] Orat. xxxi. De Spiritu sancto, cap. 5 (Op. tom. i. p. 559, and
   in Thilo's Bibliotheca P. Gr. dogm. vol. ii. p. 503).

   [1418] ton kath hemas sophon hoi men energeian touto [to pneuma hagion]
   hupelabon, hoi de ktisma, hoi de Theon.

   [1419] Ou'te sebousin, oute atimazousi.

   [1420] De trinitate, ii. 29; and xii. 55.

   [1421] In the four Epistles to Serapion, bishop of Tmuis, written in
   362 (Ep. ad Serapionem Thmuitanum episcopum contra illos qui
   blasphemant et dicunt Spiritum S. rem creatam esse), in his Opera, ed.
   Bened. tom. i. Pars ii. pp. 647-714; also in Thilo's Biblioth. Patr.
   Graec. dogmatica, vol. i. pp. 666-819.

   [1422] De Spiritu Sancto ad S. Amphilochium Iconii episcopum (Opera,
   ed. Bened. tom. iii. and in Thilo's Bibl. vol. ii. pp. 182-343).

   [1423] Orat. xxxi. De Spiritu Sancto (Opera, tom. i. p. 556 sqq. and in
   Thilo's Bibl. vol. ii. pp. 497-537).

   [1424] Orat. catech. c. 2. Comp. Rupp, Gregor v. Nyasa, p. 169 sq.

   [1425] De Spiritu S., translated by Jerome.

   [1426] De Spiritu S. libri 3.

   [1427] Similar additions had already been previously made to the Nicene
   Creed. Thus Epiphanius in his Ancoratus, c. 120, which was written in
   374, gives the Nicene Creed as then already in general use with the
   following passage on the Holy Spirit: Kai eis to hagion pneuma
   pisteuomen, to lalesan en nomo, kai keruxan en tois prophetais kai
   kataban epi ton Iordanen, laloun en apostolois , oikoun en hagiois;
   houtos de pisteuomen en auto, hoti esti pneuma hagion, pneuma Theou,
   pneuma teleion, pneuma parakleton, aktiston, ek tou patros
   ekporeuomenon, kai ek tou huiou lambanomenon kai pisteuomenon. His
   shorter Creed, Anc. c. 119 (in Migne's ed. tom. iii. 231), even
   literally agrees with that of Constantinople, but in both he adds the
   anathema of the original Nicene Creed.

   [1428] The well-known passage concerning the three witnesses in heaven,
   I John v. 7, is not cited by the Nicene fathers: a strong evidence that
   it was wanting in the manuscripts of the Bible at that time.

   [1429] "Ego distinguere nescio, non valeo, non sufficio, propterea quia
   sicut generatio ita processio inenarrabilis est."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 129. The Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed.

   We look now at the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople side by side,
   which sum up the result of these long controversies. We mark the
   differences by inclosing in brackets the parts of the former omitted by
   the latter, and italicizing the additions which the latter makes to the
   former.

   The Nicene Creed of 325 [1430]

   the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 [1431]

   Pisteuomen eis hena Theon patera pantokratora, panton horaton te kai
   aoraton poieten

   Pisteuomen eis hena Theon, patera pantokratora, poieten ouranou kai
   ges, horaton te panton kai aoraton.

   Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion tou Theou; gennethenta
   ek tou patros [monogene; tout estin ek tes ousias tou patros; Theon ek
   Theou kai [1432] ] phos ek photos, Theon alethinon ek Theou alethinou;
   gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to patri; di hou ta panta
   egeneto [ta te en to ourano kai ta en te ge;] ton di hemas tous
   anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian katelthonta kai sarkothenta,
   kai [1433] enanthropesanta; pathonta [1434] kai anastanta te trite
   hemera, anelthonta eis tous [1435] ouranous, [1436] erchomenon krinai
   xontas kai nekrous.

   Kai eis hena kurion Iesoun Christon ton huion tou Theou ton monogene;
   ton ek tou patros gennethenta pro panton ton aionon; phos ek photos,
   Theon alethinon ek Theou alethinou, gennethenta, ou poiethenta,
   homoousion to patri; di hou ta panta egeneto; ton di hemas tous
   anthropous kai dia ten hemeteran soterian katelthonta ek ton ouranon,
   kai sarkothenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, kai
   enanthropesanta; staurothenta te huper hemon epi Pontiou Pilatou, kai
   pathonta, kai taphenta, kai anastanta te trite hemera kata tas graphas,
   kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous, kai kathezomenon ek dexion tou
   patros, kai palin erchomenon meta doxes krinai zontas kai nekrous; hou
   tes basileias ouk estai telos.

   Kai eis to hagion pneuma.

   Kai eis to pneuma to agion, to kurion, to zoopoion, to ek tou pa-tros
   ekporeuomenon, to sun patri kai huio proskunoumenon kai sundoxazomenon,
   to lalesan dia ton propheton. Eis mian hagian katholiken kai
   apostoliken ek-klesian; homologoumen hen baptisma eis aphesin
   hamartion; prosdok-omen anastasin nekron kai zoen tou mellontos aionos.
   Amen.

   'Tous de legontas, hoti [1437] en pote hote ouk en; kai; prin
   gennethenai ouk en; kai hoti ex ouk onton egeneto; e ex heteras
   hupostaseos e ousias [1438] phaskontas einai; e ktiston, e trepton, e
   alloioton ton uion tou Theou; anathematizei he hagia katholike kai
   apostolike [1439] ekklesia. ``

   We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
   visible, and invisible.

   We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
   and of all things visible

   "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father
   [the only-begotten, i.e., of the essence of the Father, God of God,
   and] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of
   one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [in heaven
   and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was
   incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose
   again, ascended into heaven; from thence he cometh to judge the quick
   and the dead.

   "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten
   of the Father before all worlds ( aeons ), [1440] Light of Light, very
   God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
   Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our
   salvation, came down from heaven , and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
   of the Virgin Mary , and was made man; he was crucified for us under
   Pontius Pilate, and suffered , and was buried , and the third day he
   rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven , and
   sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; from thence he cometh again,
   with glory , to judge the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall have
   no end . [1441]

   "And in the Holy Ghost.

   "And in the Holy Ghost, who is Lord and Giver of life, who pro-ceedeth
   from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped
   and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and
   apostolic church, we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
   we look fo r the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to
   come. Amen . [1442]

   ["And those who say: there was a time when he was not; and: he was not
   before he was made; and: he was made out of nothing, or out of another
   substance or thing, or the Son of God is created, or changeable, or
   alterable; they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic
   Church." ]

   A careful comparison shows that the Constantinopolitan Creed is a
   considerable improvement on the Nicene, both in its omission of the
   anathema at the close, and in its addition of the articles concerning
   the Holy Ghost and concerning the church and the way of salvation. The
   addition: according to the Scriptures, is also important, as an
   acknowledgment of this divine and infallible guide to the truth. The
   whole is more complete and symmetrical than the Nicaenum, and in this
   respect is more like the Apostles' Creed, which, in like manner, begins
   with the creation and ends with the resurrection and the life
   everlasting, and is disturbed by no polemical dissonance; but the
   Apostles' Creed is much more simple in structure, and thus better
   adapted to the use of a congregation and of youth, than either of the
   others.

   The Constantinopolitan Creed maintained itself for a time by the side
   of the Nicene, and after the council of Chalcedon in 451, where it was
   for the first time formally adopted, it gradually displaced the other.
   Since that time it has itself commonly borne the name of the Nicene
   Creed. Yet the original Nicene confession is still in use in some
   schismatic sects of the Eastern church.

   The Latin church adopted the improved Nicene symbol from the Greek, but
   admitted, in the article on the Holy Ghost, the further addition of the
   well-known filioque, which was first inserted at a council of Toledo in
   589, and subsequently gave rise to bitter disputes between the two
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1430] It is found, together with the similar Eusebian (Palestinian)
   confession, in the well-known Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea to his
   diocese (Epist. ad suae parochiae homines), which is given by
   Athanasius at the close of his Epist. de decretis Nicaenae Synodi
   (Opera, tom. i. p. 239, and in Thilo's Bibl. vol. i. p. 84 sq.); also,
   though with some variation by Theodoret, H. E. i. 12, and Socrates, H.
   E. i. 8. Sozomen omitted it (H. E. i. 10) from respect to the
   disciplina arcani. The Symbolum Nicaenum is given also, with
   unessential variations, by Athanasius in his letter to the emperor
   Jovian c. 3, and by Gelasius Cyzic., Lib. Synod. de Concil. Nicaeno,
   ii. 36. On the unimportant variations in the text, Comp. Walch, Bibl.
   symbol. p. 75 sqq., and A. Rahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 1842. Comp.
   also the parallel Creeds of the Nicene age in the Appendix to Pearson's
   Exposition of the Creed.

   [1431] Found in the Acts of the second ecumenical council in all the
   collections (Mansi, tom. iii. 566; Harduin, i. 814). It probably does
   not come directly from this council still less from the individual
   authorship of Gregory of Nyssa or Gregory of Nazianzum to whom it has
   sometimes been ascribed, but the additions by which it is distinguished
   from the Nicene, were already extant in substance under different forms
   (in the Symbolum Epiphanii, for example, and the Sym b. Basilii Magni),
   and took shape gradually in the course of the controversy. It is
   striking that it is not mentioned as distinct from the Nicene by
   Gregory Nazianzen in his Epist. 102 to Cledonius (tom. ii. 93 ed. Paris
   1842), nor by the third ecumenical council at Ephesus. On the other
   hand, it was twice recited at the council of Chalcedon, twice adopted
   in the acts, and thus solemnly sanctioned. Comp. Hefele, ii. 11, 12.

   [1432] Kai is wanting in Athanasius (De decretis, etc,).

   [1433] Kai is wanting in Athanasius; Socrates and Galerius have it.

   [1434] Gelasius adds taphenta, buried.

   [1435] Without the article in Athanasius.

   [1436] Al. kai.

   [1437] Athanasius omits hoti.

   [1438] Here hypostasis and essence are still used interchangeably;
   though Basil and Bull endeavor to prove a distinction. Comp. on the
   contrary, Petavius, De trinit. l. iv. c. 1 (p. 314 sqq.). Rufinus, i.
   6, translates: "Ex alia subsistentia aut substantia."

   [1439] Athanasius omits hagia and apostolike. Theodoret has both
   predicates, Socrates has apostolike, all read katholike.

   [1440] This addition appears as early as the creeds of the council of
   Antioch in 341.

   [1441] This addition likewise is found substantially in the Antiochian
   creeds of 341, and is directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius,
   and Paul of Samosata, who taught that the union of the power of God
   (energeia drastike) with the man Jesus will cease at the end of the
   world, so that the Son and His kingdom are not eternal Comp. Hefele, i.
   438 and 507 sq.

   [1442] Similar additions concerning the Holy Ghost, the catholic
   church, baptism and life everlasting are found in the older symbols of
   Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, and the two Creeds of Epiphanius. See § 128
   above, and Appendix to Pearson on the Creed, p. 594 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 130. The Nicene, Doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinitarian
   Terminology.

   The doctrine of the essential deity and the personality of the Holy
   Ghost completed the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity ; and of this
   doctrine as a whole we can now take a closer view.

   This fundamental and comprehensive dogma secured both the unity and the
   full life of the Christian conception of God; and in this respect it
   represents, as no other dogma does, the whole of Christianity. It forms
   a bulwark against heathen polytheism on the one hand, and Jewish deism
   and abstract monotheism on the other. It avoids the errors and combines
   the truth of these two opposite conceptions. Against the pagans, says
   Gregory of Nyssa, we hold the unity of essence; against the Jews, the
   distinction of hypostases. We do not reject all multiplicity, but only
   such as destroys the unity of the being, like the pagan polytheism; no
   more do we reject all unity, but only such unity as denies diversity
   and full vital action. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity,
   furthermore, formed the true mean between Sabellianism and tritheism,
   both of which taught a divine triad, but at the expense, in the one
   case, of the personal distinctions, in the other, of the essential
   unity. It exerted a wholesome regulative influence on the other dogmas.
   It overcame all theories of emanation, established the Christian
   conception of creation by a strict distinction of that which proceeds
   from the essence of God, and is one with him, like the Son and the
   Spirit, from that which arises out of nothing by the free will of God,
   and is of different substance. It provided for an activity and motion
   of knowledge and love in the divine essence, without the Origenistic
   hypothesis of an eternal creation. And by the assertion of the true
   deity of the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, it secured the divine
   character of the work of redemption and sanctification.

   The Nicene fathers did not pretend to have exhausted the mystery of the
   Trinity, and very well understood that all human knowledge, especially
   in this deepest, central dogma, proves itself but fragmentary. All
   speculation on divine things ends in a mystery, and reaches an
   inexplicable residue, before which the thinking mind must bow in humble
   devotion. "Man," says Athanasius, "can perceive only the hem of the
   garment of the triune God; the cherubim cover the rest with their
   wings." In his letter to the Monks, written about 358, he confesses
   that the further he examines, the more the mystery eludes his
   understanding, [1443] and he exclaims with the Psalmist: "Such
   knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto
   it." [1444] Augustine says in one place: "If we be asked to define the
   Trinity, we can only say, it is not this or that." [1445] But though we
   cannot explain the how or why of our faith, still the Christian may
   know, and should know, what he believes, and what he does not believe,
   and should be persuaded of the facts and truths which form the matter
   of his faith.

   The essential points of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity are these:

   1. There is only one divine essence or substance. [1446] Father, Son,
   and Spirit are one in essence, or consubstantial. [1447] They are in
   one another, inseparable, and cannot be conceived without each other.
   In this point the Nicene doctrine is thoroughly monotheistic or
   monarchian, in distinction from tritheism, which is but a new form of
   the polytheism of the pagans.

   The terms essence (ousia) and nature (phusis), in the philosophical
   sense, denote not an individual, a personality, but the genus or
   species; not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis. All men are of the
   same substance, partake of the same human nature, though as persons and
   individuals they are very different. [1448] The term homoousion, in its
   strict grammatical sense, differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as
   well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but
   equality of essence or community of nature among several beings. It is
   clearly used thus in the Chalcedonian symbol, where it is said that
   Christ is "consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father as touching the
   Godhead, and consubstantial with us [and yet individually, distinct
   from us] as touching the manhood." The Nicene Creed does not expressly
   assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless
   it be in the first article: "We believe in one God"); and the main
   point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict
   divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the
   Father. If we press the difference of homoousion from monoousion, and
   overlook the many passages in which they assert with equal emphasis the
   monarchia or numerical unity of the Godhead, we must charge them with
   tritheism. [1449]

   But in the divine Trinity consubstantiality denotes not only sameness
   of kind, but at the same time numerical unity; not merely the unum in
   specie, but also the unum in numero. The, three persons are related to
   the divine substance not as three individuals to their species, as
   Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Peter, John, and Paul, to human nature;
   they are only one God. The divine substance is absolutely indivisible
   by reason of its simplicity, and absolutely inextensible and
   untransferable by reason of its infinity; whereas a corporeal substance
   can be divided, and the human nature can be multiplied by generation.
   Three divine substances would limit and exclude each other, and
   therefore could not be infinite or absolute. The whole fulness of the
   one undivided essence of God, with all its attributes, is in all the
   persons of the Trinity, though in each in his own way: in the Father as
   original principle, in the Son by eternal generation, in the Spirit by,
   eternal procession. The church teaches not one divine essence and three
   persons, but one essence in three persons. Father, Son, and Spirit
   cannot be conceived as three separate individuals, but are in one
   another, and form a solidaric unity. [1450]

   Many passages of the Nicene fathers have unquestionably a tritheistic
   sound, but are neutralized by others which by themselves may bear a
   Sabellian construction so that their position must be regarded as
   midway between these two extremes. Subsequently John Philoponus, an
   Aristotelian and Monophysite in Alexandria about the middle of the
   sixth century, was charged with tritheism, because he made no
   distinction between phusisand hupostasis, and reckoned in the Trinity
   three natures, substances, and deities, according to the number of
   persons. [1451]

   2. In this one divine essence there are three persons [1452] or, to use
   a better term, hypostases, [1453] that is, three different modes of
   subsistence [1454] of the one same undivided and indivisible whole,
   which in the Scriptures are called the Father, the Son, and the Holy
   Ghost. [1455] These distinctions are not merely different attributes,
   powers, or activities of the Godhead, still less merely subjective
   aspects under which it presents itself to the human mind; but each
   person expresses the whole fulness of the divine being with all its
   attributes, and the three persons stand in a relation of mutual
   knowledge and love. The Father communicates his very life to the Son,
   and the Spirit is the bond of union and communion between the two. The
   Son speaks, and as the God-Man, even prays, to the Father, thus
   standing over against him as a first person towards a second; and calls
   the Holy Ghost "another Comforter" whom he will send from the Father,
   thus speaking of him as of a third person. [1456]

   Here the orthodox doctrine forsook Sabellianism or modalism, which, it
   is true, made Father, Son, and Spirit strictly coordinate, but only as
   different denominations and forms of manifestation of the one God.

   But, on the other hand, as we have already intimated, the term person
   must not be taken here in the sense current among men, as if the three
   persons were three different individuals, or three self-conscious and
   separately acting beings. The trinitarian idea of personality lies
   midway between that of a mere form of manifestation, or a personation,
   which would lead to Sabellianism, and the idea of an independent,
   limited human personality, which would result in tritheism. In other
   words, it avoids the monoousian or unitarian trinity of a threefold
   conception and aspect of one and the same being, and the triousian or
   tritheistic trinity of three distinct and separate beings. [1457] In
   each person there is the same inseparable divine substance, united with
   the individual property and relation which distinguishes that person
   from the others. The word person is in reality only a make-shift, in
   the absence of a more adequate term. Our idea of God is more true and
   deep than our terminology, and the essence and character of God far
   transcends our highest ideas. [1458]

   The Nicene fathers and Augustine endeavored, as Tertullian and
   Dionysius of Alexandria had already done, to illustrate the Trinity by
   analogies from created existence. Their figures were sun, ray, and
   light; fountain, stream, and flow; root, stem, and fruit; the colors of
   the rainbow; [1459] soul, thought, and spirit; [1460] memory,
   intelligence, and will; [1461] and the idea of love, which affords the
   best illustration, for God is love. [1462] Such figures are indeed
   confessedly insufficient as proofs, and, if pressed, might easily lead
   to utterly erroneous conceptions. For example: sun, ray, and light are
   not co-ordinate, but the two latter are merely qualities or emanations
   of the first. "Omne simile claudicat." [1463] Analogies, however, here
   do the negative service of repelling the charge of unreasonableness
   from a doctrine which is in fact the highest reason, and which has been
   acknowledged in various forms by the greatest philosophers, from Plato
   to Schelling and Hegel, though often in an entirely unscriptural sense.
   A certain trinity undeniably runs through all created life, and is
   especially reflected in manifold ways in man, who is created after the
   image of God; in the relation of body, soul, and spirit; in the
   faculties of thought, feeling, and will; in the nature of
   self-consciousness; [1464] and in the nature of love. [1465] 3. Each
   divine person has his property, as it were a characteristic
   individuality, expressed by the Greek word idiotes, [1466] and the
   Latin proprietas. [1467] This is not to be confounded with attribute;
   for the divine attributes, eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, wisdom,
   holiness, love, etc., are inherent in the divine essence, and are the
   common possession of all the divine hypostases. The idiotes, on the
   contrary, is a peculiarity of the hypostasis, and therefore cannot be
   communicated or transferred from one to another.

   To the first person fatherhood, or the being unbegotten, [1468] is
   ascribed as his property; to the second, sonship, or the being
   begotten; [1469] to the Holy Ghost, procession. [1470] In other words:
   The Father is unbegotten, but begetting; the Son is uncreated, but
   begotten; the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (and, according to
   the Latin doctrine, also from the Son). But these distinctions relate,
   as we have said, only to the hypostases, and have no force with respect
   to the divine essence which is the same in all, and neither begets nor
   is begotten, nor proceeds, nor is sent.

   4. The divine persons are in one another, mutually interpenetrate, and
   form a perpetual intercommunication and motion within the divine
   essence; as the Lord says: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me;"
   and "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." [1471] This
   perfect indwelling and vital communion was afterwards designated (by
   John of Damascus and the scholastics) by such terms as enuparxis,
   perichoresis, [1472] inexistentia, immanentia, inhabitatio, circulatio,
   permeatio, intercommunio, circumincessio. [1473]

   5. The Nicene doctrine already contains, in substance, a distinction
   between two trinities: an immanent trinity of constitution, [1474]
   which existed from eternity, and an economic trinity of manifestation;
   [1475] though this distinction did not receive formal expression till a
   much later period. For the generation of the Son and the procession of
   the Spirit are, according to the doctrine, an eternal process. The
   perceptions and practical wants of the Christian mind start, strictly
   speaking, with the trinity of revelation in the threefold progressive
   work of the creation, the redemption, and the preservation of the
   world, but reason back thence to a trinity of being; for God has
   revealed himself as he is, and there can be no contradiction between
   his nature and his works. The eternal pre-existence of the Son and the
   Spirit is the background of the historical revelation by which they
   work our salvation. The Scriptures deal mainly with the trinity of
   revelation, and only hint at the trinity of essence, as in the prologue
   of the Gospel of John which asserts an eternal distinction between God
   and the Logos. The Nicene divines, however, agreeably to the
   metaphysical bent of the Greek mind, move somewhat too exclusively in
   the field of speculation and in the dark regions of the intrinsic and
   ante-mundane relations of the Godhead, and too little upon the
   practical ground of the facts of salvation.

   6. The Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors, a certain
   subordinationism, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of
   consubstantiality. But we must distinguish between, a subordinatianism
   of essence (ousia) and a subordinatianism of hypostasis, of order and
   dignity. [1476] The former was denied, the latter affirmed. The essence
   of the Godhead being but one, and being absolutely perfect, can admit
   of no degrees. Father, Son, and Spirit all have the same divine
   essence, yet not in a co-ordinate way, but in an order of
   subordination. The Father has the essence originally and of himself,
   from no other; he is the primal divine subject, to whom alone
   absoluteness belongs, and he is therefore called preeminently God,
   [1477] or the principle, the fountain, and the root of Godhead. [1478]
   The Son, on the contrary, has his essence by communication from the
   Father, therefore, in a secondary, derivative way. "The Father is
   greater than the Son." The one is unbegotten, the other begotten; the
   Son is from the Father, but the Father is not from the Son; fatherhood
   is in the nature of the case primary, sonship secondary. The same
   subordination is still more applicable to the Holy Ghost. The Nicene
   fathers thought the idea of the divine unity best preserved by making
   the Father, notwithstanding the triad of persons, the monad from which
   Son and Spirit spring, and to which they return.

   This subordination is most plainly expressed by Hilary of Poictiers,
   the champion of the Nicene doctrine in the West. [1479] The familiar
   comparisons of fountain and stream, sun and light, which Athanasius,
   like Tertullian, so often uses, likewise lead to a dependence of the
   Son upon the Father [1480] Even the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed
   favors it, in calling the Son God of God, Light of Light, very God of
   very God. For if a person has anything, or is anything, of another, he
   has not that, or is not that, of himself. Yet this expression may be
   more correctly understood, and is in fact sometimes used by the later
   Nicene fathers, as giving the Son and Spirit only their hypostases from
   the Father, while the essence of deity is common to all three persons,
   and is co-eternal in all.

   Scriptural argument for this theory of subordination was found abundant
   in such passages as these: "As the Father hath life in himself (echei
   zoen en heauto), so hath he given (edoke) to the Son to have life in
   himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also;" [1481]
   "All things are delivered unto me (panta moi paredothe) of my Father;"
   [1482] "My father is greater than I." [1483] But these and similar
   passages refer to the historical relation of the Father to the
   incarnate Logos in his estate of humiliation, or to the elevation of
   human nature to participation in the glory and power of the divine,
   [1484] not to the eternal metaphysical relation of the Father to the
   Son.

   In this point, as in the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the Nicene system
   yet needed further development. The logical consistency of the doctrine
   of the consubstantiality of the Son, upon which the Nicene fathers laid
   chief stress, must in time overcome this decaying remnant of the
   ante-Nicene subordinationism. [1485]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1443] Ep. ad Monachos (Opera tom. i. p. 343).

   [1444] Ps. cxxxix 6.

   [1445] Enarrat. in PS. xxvi. 8. John Damascenus (Expos. fidei) almost
   reaches the Socratic confession, when he says: All we can know
   concerning the divine nature is, that it cannot be conceived. Of
   course, such concessions are to be understood cum grano salis.

   [1446] Ousia, substantia, essentia, phusis, natura, to on, to
   hupokeimenon. Comp. Petavius, De Trinitate lib. iv. c. 1 (ed. Par. tom.
   ii. p. 311): "Christiani scriptores ... ousianappellant non singularem
   individuamque, sed communem individuis substantiam." The word
   hupokeimenon,however, is sometimes taken as equivalent to provswpon.

   [1447] Homoousioi. On the import of this, comp. § 127, and in the text
   above.

   [1448] "We men," says Athanasius, "consisting of body and soul are all
   mias phuseos kai ousias , but many persons."

   [1449] Cudworth (in his great work on the Intellectual System of the
   Universe, vol. ii p. 437 ff.) elaborately endeavors to show that
   Athanasius and the Nicene fathers actually taught three divine
   substances in the order of subordination. But he makes no account of
   the fact that the terminology and the distinction of ousia and
   hupostasiswere at that time not yet clearly settled.

   [1450] Comp. the passages from Athanasius and other fathers cited at §
   126. "The Persons of the Trinity," says R. Hooker (Eccles. Polity, B.
   v. ch. 56, voL ii. p. 315 in Keble's edition), quite in the spirit of
   the Nicene orthodoxy, "are not three particular substances to whom one
   general nature is common, but three that subsist by one substance which
   itself is particular: yet they all three have it and their several ways
   of having it are that which makes their personal distinction. The
   Father therefore is in the Son, and the Son in Him, they both in the
   Spirit and the Spirit in both them. So that the Father's offspring,
   which is the Son, remaineth eternally in the Father; the Father
   eternally also in the Son, no way severed or divided by reason of the
   sole and single unity of their substance. The Son in the Father as
   light in that light out of which it floweth without separation; the
   Father in the Son as light in that light which it causeth and leaveth
   not. And because in this respect his eternal being is of the Father,
   which eternal being is his life, therefore he by the Father liveth." In
   a similar strain, Cunningham says in his exposition of the Nicene
   doctrine of the Trinity (Hist. Theology, i. p. 285): "The unity of the
   divine nature as distinguished from the nature of a creature, might be
   only a specific and not a numerical unity, and this nature might be
   possessed by more than one divine being; but the Scriptures plainly
   ascribe a numerical unity to the Supreme Being, and, of course,
   preclude the idea that there are several different beings who are
   possessed of the one divine nature. This is virtually the same thing as
   teaching us that the one divine nature is possessed only by one essence
   or substance, from which the conclusion is clear, that if the Father be
   possessed of the divine nature, and if the Son, with a distinct
   personality, be also possessed of the divine nature, the Father and the
   Son must be of one and the same substance; or rather--for it can
   scarcely with propriety be called a conclusion or consequence--the
   doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is just an
   expression or embodiment of the one great truth, the different
   component parts of which are each established by scriptural authority,
   viz.: that the Father and the Son, having distinct personality in the
   unity of the Godhead, are both equally possessed of the divine, as
   distinguished from the created, nature. Before any creature existed, or
   had been produced by God out of nothing, the Son existed in the
   possession of the divine nature. If this be true, and if it be also
   true that God is in any sense one, then it is likewise true--for this
   is just according to the established meaning of words, the current mode
   of expressing it--that the Father and the Son are the same in substance
   as well as equal in power and glory."

   [1451] On tritheism, and the doctrine of John Philoponus and John
   Ascusnages, which is known to us only in fragments, comp. especially
   Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc., vol. ii. pp. 13-32. In the
   English Church the error of tritheism was revived by Dean Sherlockin
   his "Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity,"
   1690. He maintained that, with the exception of a mutual consciousness
   of each other, which no created spirits can have, the three divine
   persons are "three distinct infinite minds" or "three intelligent
   beings." He was opposed by South, Wallis, and others. See Patrick
   Fairbairn's Appendix to the English translation of Dorner's History of
   Christology, vol. iii. p. 354 ff. (Edinburgh, 1863).

   [1452] Prosopa, personae. This term occurs very often in the New
   Testament, now in the sense of person, now of face or countenance,
   again of form or external appearance. Etymologically (from pros;and he
   ops , the eye, face), it means strictly face; then in general, front;
   also mask, visor, character (of a drama); and finally, person, in the
   grammatical sense. In like manner the Latin word persona (from sonus,
   sound) signifies the mask of the Roman actor, through which he made
   himself audible (personuit); then the actor himself; then any assumed
   or real character; and finally an individual a reasonable being.
   Sabellianism used the word in the sense of face or character; tritheism
   in the grammatical sense. Owing to this ambiguity of the word, the term
   hypostasis is to be preferred, though this too is somewhat inadequate.
   Comp. the Lexicons, and especially Petavius, De trinit., lib. iv. Dr.
   Shedd also prefers hypostasis, and observes, vol. i. p. 371: " This
   term (persona), it is obvious to remark, though the more common one in
   English, and perhaps in Protestant trinitarianism generally, is not so
   well adapted to express the conception intended, as the Greek
   upostasis. It has a Sabellian leaning, because it does not with
   sufficient plainness indicate the subsistence in the Essence. The
   Father, Son, and Spirit are more than mere aspects or appearances of
   the Essence. The Latin persona was the mask worn by the actor in the
   play, and was representative of his particular character for the
   particular time. Now, although those who employed these terms
   undoubtedly gave them as full and solid a meaning as they could, and
   were undoubtedly true trinitarians, yet the representation of the
   eternal and necessary hypostatical distinctions in the Godhead, by
   terms derived from transitory scenical exhibitions, was not the best
   for purposes of science, even though the poverty of human language
   should justify their employment for popular and illustrative
   statements."

   [1453] Hupostaseis subsistentiae. Comp. Heb. i 3. (The other passages
   of the New Testament where the word is used, Heb. iii. 14; xi. 1; 2
   Cor. ix. 4; xi. 17, do not belong here.) Hupostasis, and the
   corresponding Latin sub-stantia, strictly foundation, then essence,
   substance, is originally pretty much synonymous with ousia, essentia,
   and is in fact as we have already said, frequently interchanged with
   it, even by Athanasius, and in the anathema at the close of the
   original Nicene Creed. But gradually (according to Petavius, after the
   council at Alexandria in 862) a distinction established itself in the
   church terminology, in which Gregory of Nyasa, particularly in his
   work: De differentia essentiae et hypostaseos (tom. iii. p. 32 sqq.)
   had an important influece. Comp. Petavius, l.c. p. 314 sqq.

   [1454] Tropoi huparxeos, an expression, however, capable of a Sabellian
   sense.

   [1455] This question of the tri-personality of God must not be
   confounded with the modern question of the personality of God in
   general. The tri-personality was asserted by the Nicene fathers in
   opposition to abstract monarchianism and Sabellianism; the personality
   is asserted by Christian theism against pantheism, which makes a
   personal relation of the spirit of man to God impossible.
   Schleiermacher, who as a philosopher leaned decidedly to pantheism,
   admitted (in a note to his Reden über die Religion) that devotion and
   prayer always presume and require the personality of God. The
   philosophical objection, that personality necessarily includes
   limitation by other personalities, and so contradicts the notion of the
   absoluteness of God, is untenable; for we can as well conceive an
   absolute personality, as an absolute intelligence and an absolute will,
   to which, however, the power of self-limitation must be ascribed, not
   as a weakness, but as a perfection. The orthodox tri-personality does
   not conflict with this total personality, but gives it full organic
   life.

   [1456] John xiv. 16: Allon parakleton,comp. v. 26; c. xv. 26: Ho
   parakletos;, hon ego pempso humin para patros , --a clear distinction
   of Spirit, Son, and Father.

   [1457] Comp. Petavius, l.c., who discusses very fully the trinitarian
   terminology of the Nicene fathers. Also J. H. Newman, The Arians, etc.
   p. 208: "The word person, which we venture to use in speaking of those
   three distinct manifestations of Himself, which it has pleased Almighty
   God to give us, is in its philosophical sense too wide for our meaning.
   Its essential signification, as applied to ourselves, is that of an
   individual intelligent agent, answering to the Greek hupostasis, or
   reality. On the other hand, if we restrict it to its etymological sense
   of persona or prosopon, i.e., character, it evidently means less than
   Scripture doctrine, which we wish to ascertain by it; denoting merely
   certain outward expressions of the Supreme Being relatively to
   ourselves, which are of an accidental and variable nature. The
   statements of Revelation then lie between this internal and external
   view of the Divine Essence, between Tritheism, and what is popularly
   called Unitarianism." Dr. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, vol. i.
   p. 365: " The doctrine of a subsistence in the substance of the Godhead
   brings to view a species of existence that is so anomalous and unique,
   that the human mind derives little or no aid from those analogies which
   assist it in all other cases. The hypostasis is a real subsistence,--a
   solid essential form of existence, and not a mere emanation, or energy,
   or manifestation,--but it is intermediate between substance and
   attributes. It is not identical with the substance, for there are not
   three substances. It is not identical with attributes, for the three
   Persons each and equally possess all the divine attributes .... Hence
   the human mind is called upon to grasp the notion of a species of
   existence that is totally sui generis, and not capable of illustration
   by any of the ordinary comparisons and analogies."

   [1458] As Augustinesays, De trinitate, lib. vii. cap. 4 (§ 7, ed.
   Bened. Venet. tom. viii. foL 858): "Verius cogitatur Deus quam dicitur,
   et verius est quam cogitatur."

   [1459] Used by Basil and Gregory of Nyasa.

   [1460] Psuche, enthumesis, pneuma, in Gregory Nazianzen.

   [1461] Augustine, De trinit. x. c. 11 (§ 18), tom. viii. fol. 898:
   "Haec tria, memoria, intelligentia, voluntas, quoniam non sunt tres
   vitae, sed una vita, nec tres mentes, sed una mens: consequenter utique
   non tres substantiae sunt, sed una substantia."

   [1462] Augustine, ib. viii. 8 (f. 875): "Immo vero vides trinitatem, si
   caritatem vides; " ix. 2 (f. 879): "Tria sunt, amans, et quod amatur,
   et amor." And in another place: "Tres sunt, amans, amatus, et mutuus
   amor."

   [1463] This was clearly felt and confessed by the fathers themselves,
   who used these illustrations merely as helps to their understanding.
   Joh. Damascenus (De fide orthod. l. i. c. 8; Opera, tom. i. p. 137)
   says: "It is impossible for any image to be found in created things,
   representing in itself the nature of the Holy Trinity without any point
   of dissimilitude. For can a thing created, and compound, and
   changeable, and circumscribed, and corruptible, clearly express the
   superessential divine essence, which is exempt from all these defects?"
   Comp. Mosheim's notes to Cudworth, vol. ii. 422 f. (Lond. ed. of 1845).

   [1464] The trinity of self-consciousness consists in a process of
   becoming objective to one's self, and knowing one's self in this
   objectivity, according to the logical law of thesis, antithesis, and
   synthesis, or in the unity of the subject thinking and the subject
   thought. This speculative argument has been developed by Leibnitz,
   Hegel, and other German philosophers, and is adopted also by Dr. Shedd,
   Hist. of Christian Doct. i. p. 366 ff., note. But this analogy properly
   leads at best only to a Sabellian tri-personality, not to the orthodox.

   [1465] The ethical induction of the Trinity from the idea of love was
   first attempted by Augustine, and has more recently been pursued by
   Sartorius, J. Müller, J. P. Lange, Martensen, Liebner, Schöberlein, and
   others. It is suggested by the moral essence of God, which is love, the
   relation of the Father to the Son, and the "fellowship" of the Holy
   Ghost, and it undoubtedly contains a deep element of truth; but,
   strictly taken, it yields only two different personalities and an
   impersonal relation, thus proving too much for the Father and the Son,
   and too little for the Holy Spirit.

   [1466] Also idion.Gregory of Nyssa calls these characteristic
   distinctions gnoristikai iphiotetes,peculiar marks of recognition. The
   terms idiotes , and hupostasiswere sometimes used synonymously. The
   word idiotes, fem. (from idios), peculiarity, is of course not to be
   confounded with idiotes, masc., which likewise comes from idios, but
   means a private man, then layman, then an imbecile, idiot,

   [1467] Proprietas personalis; also character hypostaticus.

   [1468] Agennesia, paternitas.

   [1469] gennesia, gennesis, generatio filiatio.

   [1470] Ekporeusis, procesio; also ekpempsis, missio; both from John xv.
   15 (pempso --ekporeuetai) and similar passages, which relate, however,
   not to the eternal trinity of constitution, but to the historical
   trinity of manifestation. Gregory Nazianzen says: Idion patros men he
   agennesia, huiou de he gennesis , pneumatos de he ekpempsis .

   [1471] John xiv. 10: Ho de pater ho en emoi menon, autos poiei ta erga?
   v.11: Ego en to patri, kai ho pater en emoi.This also refers, strictly,
   not to the eternal relation, but to the indwelling of the Father in the
   historical, incarnate Christ.

   [1472] From perichoreo (with eis), to circulate, go about, progredi,
   ambulare. Comp. Petavius, De trinit., lib. iv. c. 16 (tom. ii. p. 453
   sqq.), and De incarnatione, lib. iv. c. 14 (tom. iv. p. 473 sqq.). The
   thing itself is clearly taught even by the Nicene fathers, especially
   by Athanasius in his third Oration against the Arians, c. 3 sqq., and
   elsewhere, with reference to the relation of the Son to the Father,
   although he never, so far as I know, used the word perichoresis.
   Gregory Nazianzen uses the verb perichorein(not the noun) of the vital
   interpenetration of the two natures in Christ. Gibbon, in his
   contemptuous account of the Nicene controversy (chapter xxi.) calls the
   perichoresisor circumincessio " the deepest and darkest corner of the
   whole theological abyss," but takes no pains even to explain this idea.
   The old Protestant theologians defined the perichoresisas "immanentia,
   h. e. inexistentia mutua et singularissima, intima et perfectissima
   inhabitatio unius personae in alia." Comp. Joh. Gerhard, Loci
   theologici, tom. i. p. 197 (ed. Cotta).

   [1473] From incedo, denoting the perpetual internal motion of the
   Trinity, the circumfusio or mutua commeatio, et communicatio personarum
   inter se. Petavius (in the 2d and 4th vol. l. c.), Cudworth
   (Intellectual System of the Universe, vol. ii. p. 454, ed. of Harrison,
   Lond. 1845), and others use instead of this, circuminsessio, from
   sedeo, which rather expresses the repose of the persons in one another,
   the inexistentia or mutua existentia personarum. This would correspond
   to the Greek enuparxisrather than to perichoresis.

   [1474] Ad intra, tropos huparxeos .

   [1475] Ad extra, tropos;apokalupseos

   [1476] Hupotage taxeos kai axiomatos.

   [1477] Ho Theos, and autotheos, in distinction from Theos. Waterland
   (Works, vol. i. p. 315) remarks on this: " The title of ho Theos, being
   understood in the same sense with autotheos , was, as it ought to be,
   generally reserved to the Father, as the distinguishing personal
   character of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. And this amounts to
   no more than the acknowledgment of the Father's prerogative, as Father.
   But as it might also signify any Person who is truly and essentially
   God, it might properly be applied to the Son too: and it is so applied
   sometimes, though not so often as it is to the Father."

   [1478] He pege, he aitia, he rhiza tes theotetos: fons, origo,
   principium.

   [1479] De trinit. iii. 12: "Et quis non Patrem potiorem confitebitur,
   ut ingenitum a genito, ut Patrem a Filio, ut eum qui miserit ab eo qui
   missus sit, ut volentem ab eo qui obediat? Et ipse nobis erit testis:
   Pater major me est. Haec ita ut sunt intelligenda sunt, sed cavendum
   est, ne apud imperitos gloriam Filii honor Patris infirmet." In the
   same way Hilaryderives all the attributes of the Son from the Father.
   Comp. also Hilary, De Synodis, seu de fide Orientalium, pp. 1178 and
   1182 (Opera, ed. Bened.), and the third and eighteenth canons of the
   Sirmian council of 357.

   [1480] Comp. the relevant passages from Athanasius, Basil, and the
   Gregories, in Bull, Defensio, sect. iv. (Pars ii. p. 688 sqq.). Even
   John of Damascus, with whom the productive period of the Greek theology
   closes, still teaches the same subordination, De orthod. fide, i. 10:
   Panta hosa echei ho huios kai to pneuma, ek tou patros echei, kai auto
   to einai.

   [1481] John v. 26, 27.

   [1482] Matt. xi. 27; Comp. xxviii. 18.

   [1483] John xiv. 28. Cudworth (I. c. ii. 422) agrees with several of
   the Nicene fathers in referring this passage to the divinity of Christ,
   for the reason that the superiority of the eternal God over mortal man
   was no news at all. Mosheim in a learned note to Cudworth in loco,
   protests against both interpretations, and correctly so. For Christ
   speaks here of his entire divine-human person, but in the state of
   humiliation.

   [1484] John xvii. 5; Pbil. ii. 9-11.

   [1485] All important scholars since Petavius admit the subordinatism in
   the Nicene doctrine of the trinity; e.g., Bull, who in the fourth (not
   third, as Gibbon says) section of his famous Defensio fidei Nic.
   (Works, vol. v. Pars ii. pp. 685-796) treats quite at large of the
   subordination of the Son to the Father, and in behalf of the identity
   of the Nicene and ante-Nicene doctrine proves that all the orthodox
   fathers, before and after the council of Nice, "uno ore docuerunt
   naturam perfectionesque divinas Patri Filioque competere non
   callateraliter aut coördinate, sed subordinate; hoc est, Filium eandem
   quidem naturam divinam cum Patre communem habere, sed a Patre
   communicatam; ita scilicet ut Pater solus naturam illam divinam a se
   habeat, sive a nullo alio, Filius autem a Patre; proinde Pater
   divinitatis, quae in Filio est, origo se principium sit," etc. So
   Waterland, who, in his vindication of the orthodox doctrine of the
   Trinity against Samuel Clarke, asserts such a supremacy of the Father
   as is consistent with the eternal and necessary existence, the
   consubstantiality, and the infinite perfection of the Son. Among modem
   historians Neander, Gieseler, Baur (Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc.
   i. p. 468 ff.), and Dorner (Lehre von der Person Christi, i p. 929 ff.)
   arrive at the same result. But while Baur and Dorner (though from
   different points of view) recognize in this a defect of the Nicene
   doctrine, to be overcome by the subsequent development of the church
   dogma, the great Anglican divines, Cudworth (Intellectual System, vol.
   ii. p. 421 ff.), Pearson, Bull, Waterland (and among American divines
   Dr. Shedd) regard the Nicene subordinationism as the true, Scriptural,
   and final form of the trinitarian doctrine, and make no account of
   Augustine, who went beyond it. Kahnis (Der Kirchenglaube, ii. p. 66
   ff.) thinks that the Scriptures go still further than the Nicene
   fathers in subordinating the Son and the Spirit to the Father.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 131. The Post-Nicene Trinitarian Doctrine of Augustine.

   Augustine: De trinitate, libri xv., begun in 400, and finished about
   415; and his anti-Arian works: Contra sermonem Arianorum; Collatio cum
   Maximino Arianorum episcopo; Contra Maximinum haereticum, libri ii.
   (all in his Opera omnia, ed. Bened. of Venice, 1733, in tom. viii. pp.
   626-1004; and in Migne's ed. Par. 1845, tom. viii. pp. 683-1098).

   While the Greek church stopped with the Nicene statement of the
   doctrine of the Trinity, the Latin church carried the development
   onward under the guidance of the profound and devout speculative spirit
   of Augustine in the beginning of the fifth century, to the formation of
   the Athanasian Creed. Of all the fathers, next to Athanasius, Augustine
   performed the greatest service for this dogma, and by his
   discriminating speculation he exerted more influence upon the
   scholastic theology and that of the Reformation, than all the Nicene
   divines. The points in which he advanced upon the Nicene Creed, are the
   following: [1486]

   1. He eliminated the remnant of subordinationism, and brought out more
   clearly and sharply the consubstantiality of the three persons and the
   numerical unity of their essence. [1487]

   Yet he too admitted that the Father stood above the Son and the Spirit
   in this: that he alone is of no other, but is absolutely original and
   independent; while the Son is begotten of him, and the Spirit proceeds
   from him, and proceeds from him in a higher sense than from the Son.
   [1488] We may speak of three men who have the same nature; but the
   persons in the Trinity are not three separately subsisting individuals.
   The divine substance is not an abstract generic nature common to all,
   but a concrete, living reality. One and the same God is Father, Son,
   and Spirit. All the works of the Trinity are joint works. Therefore one
   can speak as well of an incarnation of God, as of an incarnation of the
   Son, and the theophanies of the Old Testament, which are usually
   ascribed to the Logos, may also be ascribed to the Father and the Holy
   Ghost.

   If the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity lies midway between
   Sabellianism and tritheism, Augustine bears rather to the Sabellian
   side. He shows this further in the analogies from the human spirit, in
   which he sees the mystery of the Trinity reflected, and by which he
   illustrates it with special delight and with fine psychological
   discernment, though with the humble impression that the analogies do
   not lift the veil, but only make it here and there a little more
   penetrable. He distinguishes in man being, which answers to the Father,
   knowledge or consciousness, which answers to the Son, and will, which
   answers to the Holy Ghost. [1489] A similar trinity he finds in the
   relation of mind, word, and love; again in the relation of memory,
   intelligence, and will or love, which differ, and yet are only one
   human nature (but of course also only one human person). [1490]

   2. Augustine taught the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as
   well as from the Father, though from the Father mainly. This followed
   from the perfect essential unity of the hypostases, and was supported
   by some passages of Scripture which speak of the Son sending the
   Spirit. [1491] He also represented the Holy Ghost as the love and
   fellowship between Father and Son, as the bond which unites the two,
   and which unites believers with God. [1492]

   The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed affirms only the processio
   Spiritus a Patre, though not with an exclusive intent, but rather to
   oppose the Pneumatomachi, by giving the Spirit a relation to the Father
   as immediate as that of the Son. The Spirit is not created by the Son,
   but eternally proceeds directly from the Father, as the Son is from
   eternity begotten of the Father. Everything proceeds from the Father,
   is mediated by the Son, and completed by the Holy Ghost. Athanasius,
   Basil, and the Gregories give this view, without denying procession
   from the Son. Some Greek fathers, Epiphanius, [1493] Marcellus of
   Ancyra, [1494] and Cyril of Alexandria, [1495] derived the Spirit from
   the Father and the Son; while Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret
   would admit no dependence of the Spirit on the Son.

   Augustine's view gradually met universal acceptance in the West. It was
   adopted by Boëthius, Leo the Great and others. [1496] It was even
   inserted in the Nicene Creed by the council of Toledo in 589 by the
   addition of filioque, together with an anathema against its opponents,
   by whom are meant, however, not the Greeks, but the Arians.

   Here to this day lies the main difference in doctrine between the Greek
   and Latin churches, though the controversy over it did not break out
   till the middle of the ninth century under patriarch Photius, (867).
   [1497] Dr. Waterland briefly sums up the points of dispute thus: [1498]
   "The Greeks and Latins have had many and tedious disputes about the
   procession. One thing is observable, that though the ancients, appealed
   to by both parties, have often said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
   the Father, without mentioning the Son, yet they never said that he
   proceeded from the Father alone; so that the modern Greeks have
   certainly innovated in that article in expression at least, if not in
   real sense and meaning. As to the Latins, they have this to plead, that
   none of the ancients ever condemned their doctrine; that many of them
   have expressly asserted it; that the oriental churches themselves
   rather condemn their taking upon them to add anything to a creed formed
   in a general council, than the doctrine itself; that those Greek
   churches that charge their doctrine as heresy, yet are forced to admit
   much the same thing, only in different words; and that Scripture itself
   is plain, that the Holy Ghost proceeds at least by the Son, if not from
   him; which yet amounts to the same thing."

   This doctrinal difference between the Greek and the Latin Church,
   however insignificant it may appear at first sight, is characteristic
   of both, and illustrates the contrast between the conservative and
   stationary theology of the East, after the great ecumenical councils,
   and the progressive and systematizing theology of the West. The wisdom
   of changing an ancient and generally received formula of faith may be
   questioned. It must be admitted, indeed, that the Nicene Creed has
   undergone several other changes which were embodied in the
   Constantinopolitan Creed, and adopted by the Greeks as well as the
   Latins. But in the case of the Filioque, the Eastern Church which made
   the Nicene Creed, was never consulted, and when the addition was first
   brought to the notice of the bishop of Rome by Charlemagne, he
   protested against the innovation. His successors acquiesced in it, and
   the Protestant churches accepted the Nicene Creed with the Filioque,
   though without investigation. The Greek Church has ever protested
   against it since the time of Photius, and will never adopt it. She
   makes a sharp distinction between the procession, which is an eternal
   and internal process in the Holy Trinity itself, and the mission, of
   the Spirit, which is an act of revelation in time. The Spirit eternally
   proceeds from the Father alone (though through the Son); but was sent
   by the Father and the Son on the day of Pentecost. Hence the present
   tense is used of the former (John 15:26), and the future of the latter
   (14:26; 15:26). The Greek Church is concerned for the dignity and
   sovereignty of the Father, as the only source and root of the Deity.
   The Latin Church is concerned for the dignity of the Son, as being of
   one substance with the Father, and infers the double procession from
   the double mission.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1486] The Augustinian doctrine of the trinity is discussed at length
   by Baur, Die christl. Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc. vol. i. pp.
   826-888. Augustinehad but an imperfect knowledge of the Greek language,
   and was therefore not accurately acquainted with the writings of the
   Nicene fathers, but was thrown the more upon his own thinking. Comp.
   his confession, De trinit. l. iii. cap. 1 (tom. viii. f. 793, ed.
   Bened. Venet., from which in this section I always quote, though giving
   the varying chapter-division of other editions).

   [1487] De trinit. l. vii. cap. 6 (§ 11), tom. viii. f. 863: "Non major
   essentia est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus simul, quam solus
   Pater, aut solus Filius; sed tres simul illae substantiae [here
   equivalent to hupostasei" ] sive personae, si ita dicendae sunt,
   aequales sunt singulis: quod animalis homo non percipit." Ibid. (f.
   863): "Ita dicat unam essentiam, ut non existimet aliud alio vel majus,
   vel melius, vel aliqua ex parte divisum." Ibid. lib. viii. c. 1 (fol.
   865): "Quod vero ad se dicuntur singuli, non dici pluraliter tres, sed
   unam ipsam trinitatem: sicut Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus
   Sanctus; et bonus Pater, bonus Filius, bonus Spiritus Sanctus; et
   omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus; nec
   tamen tres Dii, aut tres boni, aut tres omnipotentes, sed unus Deus,
   bonus, omnipotens ipsa Trinitas." Lib. xv. 17 (fol. 988): "Pater Deus,
   et Filius Deus, et Spiritus S. Deus, et simul unus Deus." De Civit.
   Dei, xi. cap. 24: "Non tres Dii vel tres omnipotentes, sed unus Deus
   omnipotens." So the Athanasian Creed, vers. 11.

   [1488] De trinit. l. xv. c. 26 (§ 47, fol. 1000): "Pater solus non est
   de alio, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in Scripturis, sed
   in consuetudine disputantium ... Filius autem de Patre natus est: et
   Spiritus Sanctus de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo temporis
   intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit."

   [1489] Confess. xiii. 11: "Dico haec tria: esse, nosse, velle. Sum
   enim, et novi, et volo; sum sciens, et volens; et scio esse me, et
   velle; et volo esse, et scire. In his igitur tribus quam sit
   inseparabilis vita, et una vita, et una mens, et una essentia, quam
   denique inseparabilis distinctio, et tamen distinctio, videat qui
   potest." This comparison he repeats in a somewhat different form, De
   Civit. Dei, xi. 26.

   [1490] Mens, verbum, amor;--memoria, intelligentia, voluntas or
   caritas; for voluntas and caritas are with him essentially the same:
   "Quid enim est aliud caritas quam voluntas?" Again: amans, amatus,
   mutuus amor. On these, and similar analogies which we have already
   mentioned in § 130, comp. Augustine, De Civit. Dei, l. xi. c. 24; De
   trinit. xiv. and xv., and the criticism of Baur, l.c. i. p. 844 sqq.

   [1491] John xv. 26: Ho parakletos, hon ego pempso humin para tou patros
   ,and xvi. 7: Pempso auton pros humas; compared with John xiv. 26: To
   pneuma to hagion, ho pempsei ho pater en to onomati mou.
   Augustineappeals also to John xx. 22, where Christ breathes the Holy
   Ghost on his disciples, De trinit. iv. c. 20 (§ 29), fol. 829: "Nec
   possumus dicere quod Spiritus S. et a Filio non procedat, neque enim
   frusta idem Spiritus et Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur. Nec video
   quid aliud significare voluerit, cum sufflans in faciem discipulorum
   ait: 'Accipite Spiritum S.' " Tract. 99 in Evang. Joh. § 9: "Spiritus
   S. non de Patre procedit in Filium, et de Filio procedit ad
   sanctificandam creatuam, sed simul de utroque procedit." But after all,
   he makes the Spirit proceed mainly from the Father: de patre
   principaliter. De trinit. xv. c. 26 (§ 47). Augustinemoreover regards
   the procession of the Spirit from the Son as the gift of the Father
   which is implied in the communication of life to the Son. Comp. Tract
   99 in Evang. Joh. § 8: "A quo habet Filius ut sit Deus (est enim de Deo
   Deus), ab illo habet utique ut etiam de illo procedat Spiritus Sanctus:
   ac per hoc Spiritus Sanctus ut etiam de Filio procedat sicut procedit
   de Patre, ab ipso habet Patre."

   [1492] De trinit. xv. c. 17 (§ 27) fol. 987: "Spiritus S. secundum
   Scriptams sacras nec Patris solius est, nec Filii solius, sed amborum,
   et ideo communem, qua invicem se diligunt Pater et Filius, nobis
   insinuat caritatem." Undoubtedly God is love; but this may be said in a
   special sense of the Holy Ghost. De trinit. xv. c. 17 (§ 29), fol. 988:
   "Ut scillicet in illa simplici summaque natura non sit aliud substantia
   et aliud caritas, sed substantia ipsa sit caritas et caritas ipsa sit
   substantia, sive in Patre, sive in Filio, sive in Spiritu S., et tamen
   proprie Spiritus S. caritas nuncupetur."

   [1493] Ancor. § 9: Ara Theos ek patros kai huiou to pneuma.Yet he says
   not expressly: ekporeuetai ek tou huiou.

   [1494] Though in a Sabellian sense.

   [1495] Who in his anathemas against Nestorius condemns also those who
   do not derive the Holy Ghost from Christ. Theodoret replied: If it be
   meant that the Spirit is of the same essence with Christ, and proceeds
   from the Father, we agree; but if it be intended that the Spirit has
   his existence through the Son, this is impious. Comp. Neander,
   Dogmengesch. i. p. 822.

   [1496] Comp. the passages in Hagenbach's Dogmengeschichte, vol. i. p.
   267 (in the Engl. ed. by H. B. Smith, New York, 1861), and in Perthel,
   Leo der G. p. 138 ff Leo says, e.g., Serm. lxxv. 2: "Huius enim beata
   trinitatis incommutabilis deitas una est in substantia indivisa in
   opere, concors in voluntate, par in potential aequalis in gloria."

   [1497] Comp. on this Controversy J. G. Walch: Historia Controversiae
   Graecorum Latinorumque de Processione Spir. S., Jen. 1751. Also John
   Mason Neale; A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Lond. 1850, vol. i.
   1093. A. P. Stanley (Eastern Church, p. 142) calls this dispute which
   once raged so long and so violently, "an excellent specimen of the race
   of extinct controversies."

   [1498] Works, vol. iii. p. 237 f.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 132. The Athanasian Creed.

   G. Joh. Voss (Reform): De tribus symbolis, diss. ii. 1642, and in his
   Opera Omnia, Amstel. 1701 (forming an epoch in critical investigation).
   Archbishop Usher: De symbolis. 1647. J. H. Heidegger (Ref.): De symbolo
   Athanasiano. Zür. 1680. Em. Tentzel (Luth.): Judicia eruditoram de
   Symb. Athan. studiose collecta. Goth. 1687. Montfaucon (R.C.): Diatribe
   in Symbolum Quicunque, in the Benedictine ed. of the Opera Athanasii,
   Par. 1698, tom. ii. pp. 719-735. Dan. Waterland (Anglican): A Critical
   History of the Athanasian Creed. Cambridge, 1724, sec. ed. 1728 (in
   Waterland's Works, ed. Mildert, vol. iii. pp. 97-270, Oxf. 1843). Dom.
   M. Speroni (R.C.): De symbolo vulgo S. Athanasii. Dias. i. and ii.
   Patav. 1750-'51. E. Köllner (Luth.): Symbolik aller christl.
   Confessionen. Hamb. vol. i. 1837, pp. 53-92. W. W. Harvey (Angl.): The
   History and Theology of the Three Creeds. Lond. 1854, vol. ii. pp.
   541-695. Ph. Schaff: The Athanasian Creed, in the Am. Theolog. Review,
   New York, 1866, pp. 584-625. (Comp. the earlier literature, in
   chronological order, in Waterland, l. c. p. 108 ff., and in Köllner).

   [Comp. here the notes in Appendix, p. 1034, and the later and fuller
   treatment in Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, N. York, 4th ed., 1884,
   vol. i. 34-42; vol. ii. 66-72, with the facsimile of the oldest MS. of
   the Athan. Creed in the Utrecht Psalter, ii. 555 sq. The rediscovery of
   that MS. in 1873 occasioned a more thorough critical investigation of
   the whole subject, with the result that the Utrecht Psalter dates from
   the ninth century, and that there is no evidence that the
   pseudo-Athanasian Creed, in its present complete form, existed before
   the age of Charlemagne. The statements in this section which assume an
   earlier origin, must be modified accordingly. Added 1889.]

   The post-Nicene or Augustinian doctrine of the Trinity reached its
   classic statement in the third and last of the ecumenical confessions,
   called the Symbolum Athanasianum, or, as it is also named from its
   initial words, the Symbolum Quicumque; beyond which the orthodox
   development of the doctrine in the Roman and Evangelical churches to
   this day has made no advance. [1499] This Creed is unsurpassed as a
   masterpiece of logical clearness, rigor, and precision; and so far as
   it is possible at all to state in limited dialectic form, and to
   protect against heresy, the inexhaustible depths of a mystery of faith
   into which the angels desire to look, this liturgical theological
   confession achieves the task. We give it here in full, anticipating the
   results of the Christological controversies; and we append parallel
   passages from Augustine and other older writers, which the unknown
   author has used, in some cases word for word, and has woven with great
   dexterity into an organic whole. [1500]

   1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat
   catholicam fidem. [1501]

   1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
   hold the catholic [true Christian] faith

   2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque [1502] servaverit, absque
   dubio [1503] in aeternum peribit.

   2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
   doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

   3. Fides autem catholica haec est, ut unum Deum in trinitate et
   trinitatem in unitate veneremur; [1504]

   3. But this is the catholic faith: That we worship one God in trinity,
   and trinity in unity;

   4. Neque confundentes personas; neque substantiam separantes. [1505]

   4. Neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance.

   5. Alia est enim persona Patris: alia Filii: alia Spiritus Sancti.
   [1506]

   5. For there is one person of the Father: another of the Son: another
   of the Holy Ghost.

   6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas: aequalis
   gloria, coaeterna majestas. [1507]

   6. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
   is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coëternal.

   7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis (et) Spiritus Sanctus. [1508]

   7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

   8. Increatus Pater: increatus Filius: increatus (et) Spiritus Sanctus.

   8. The Father is uncreated: the Son is uncreated: the Holy Ghost is
   uncreated.

   9. Immensus Pater: immensus Filius: immensus Spiritus Sanctus. [1509]

   9. The Father is immeasurable: the Son is immeasurable: the Holy Ghost
   is immeasurable.

   10. Aeternus Pater: aeternus Filius: aeternus (et) Spiritus Sanctus.
   [1510]

   10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Ghost eternal.

   11. Et tamen non tree aeterni: sed unus aeternus.

   11. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal.

   12. Sicut non tres increati: nec tres immensi: sed unus increatus et
   unus immensus.

   12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but
   one uncreated, and one immeasurable.

   13. Similiter omnipotens Pater: omnipotens Filius: omnipotens (et)
   Spiritus Sanctus.

   13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy
   Ghost almighty,

   14. Et tamen non tres omnipo-entes; sed unus omnipotens. [1511]

   14. And yet there are not three almighties: but one almighty.

   15. Ita Deus Pater: Deus Filius: Deus (et) Spiritus Sanctus. [1512]

   15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.

   16. Et tamen non tres Dii; sed unus est Deus. [1513]

   16. And yet there are not three Gods; but one God.

   17. Ita Dominus Pater: Dominus Filius: Dominus (et) Spiritus Sanctus.

   17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.

   18. Et tamen non tres Domini; sed unus est Dominus. [1514]

   18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord

   19. Quia sicut singulatim unamquamque personam et

   19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to Deum et
   Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: [1515] acknowledge
   every Person by himself to be God and Lord

   20. Ita tres Deos, aut (tres) [1516] Dominos dicere catholica religione
   prohibemur.

   20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are
   three Gods, or three Lords.

   21. Pater a nullo est factus; nec creatus; nec genitus.

   21. The Father is made of none; neither created; nor begotten.

   22. Filius a Patre solo est: [1517] non factus; nec creatus; sed
   genitus.

   22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but
   begotten.

   23. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus; nec creatus; nec
   genitus (est); sed procedens. [1518]

   23. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son: not made; neither
   created; nor begotten; but proceeding.

   24. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus
   Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. [1519]

   24. Thus there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three
   Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

   25. Et in hac trinitate nihil prius, aut posterius: nihil maius, aut
   minus. [1520]

   25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is
   greater or less than another.

   26. Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales.

   26. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal

   27. Ita, ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est, et unitas in
   trinitate et trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. [1521]

   27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the
   Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

   28. Qui vult ergo salvos esse, ita de trinitate sentiat.

   28. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

   The origin of this remarkable production is veiled in mysterious
   darkness. Like the Apostles' Creed, it is not so much the work of any
   one person, as the production of the spirit of the church. As the
   Apostles' Creed represents the faith of the ante-Nicene period, and the
   Nicene Creed the faith of the Nicene, so the Athanasian Creed gives
   formal expression to the post-Nicene faith in the mystery of the
   Trinity and the incarnation of God. The old tradition which, since the
   eighth century, has attributed it to Athanasius as the great champion
   of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, has been long ago abandoned on
   all hands; for in the writings of Athanasius and his contemporaries,
   and even in the acts of the third and fourth ecumenical councils, no
   trace of it is to be found. [1522] It does not appear at all in the
   Greek church till the eleventh or twelfth century; and then it occurs
   in a few manuscripts which bear the manifest character of translations,
   vary from one another in several points, and omit or modify the clause
   on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son (v.
   23). [1523] It implies the entire post-Nicene or Augustinian
   development of the doctrine of the Trinity, and even the Christological
   discussions of the fifth century, though it does not contain the
   anti-Nestorian test-word theotokos, mother of God. It takes several
   passages verbally from Augustine's work on the Trinity which was not
   completed till the year 415, and from the Commonitorium of Vincentius
   of Lerinum, 434; works which evidently do not quote the passages from
   an already existing symbol, but contribute them as stones to the
   building. On the other hand it contains no allusion to the Monophysite
   and Monothelite controversies, and cannot be placed later than the year
   570; for at that date Venantius Fortunatus of Poictiers wrote a short
   commentary on it.

   It probably originated about the middle of the fifth century, in the
   school of Augustine, and in Gaul, where it makes its first appearance,
   and acquires its first ecclesiastical authority. But the precise author
   or compiler cannot be discovered, and the various views of scholars
   concerning him are mere opinions. [1524] From Gaul the authority of
   this symbol spread over the whole of Latin Christendom, and
   subsequently made its way into some portions of the Greek church in
   Europe. The various Protestant churches have either formally adopted
   the Athanasian Creed together with the Nicene and the Apostles', or at
   all events agree, in their symbolical books, with its doctrine of the
   trinity and the person of Christ. [1525]

   The Athanasian Creed presents, in short, sententious articles, and in
   bold antitheses, the church doctrine of the Trinity in opposition to
   Unitarianism and tritheism, and the doctrine of the incarnation and the
   divine-human person of Christ in opposition to Nestorianism and
   Eutychianism, and thus clearly and concisely sums up the results of the
   trinitarian and Christological controversies of the ancient church. It
   teaches the numerical unity of substance and the triad of persons in
   the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, with the perfect deity and
   perfect humanity of Christ in one indivisible person. In the former
   case we have one substance or nature in three persons; in the latter,
   two natures in one divine-human person.

   On this faith eternal salvation is made to depend. By the damnatory
   clauses in its prologue and epilogue the Athanasianum has given offence
   even to those who agree with its contents. But the original Nicene
   Creed contained likewise an anathema, which afterwards dropped out of
   it; the anathema is to be referred to the heresies, and may not be
   applied to particular persons, whose judge is God alone; and finally,
   the whole intention is, not that salvation and perdition depend on the
   acceptance and rejection of any theological formulary or human
   conception and exhibition of the truth, but that faith in the revealed
   truth itself, in the living God, Father, Son, and Spirit, and in Jesus
   Christ the God-Man and the Saviour of the world, is the thing which
   saves, even where the understanding may be very defective, and that
   unbelief is the thing which condemns; according to the declaration of
   the Lord: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
   that believeth not shall be damned." In particular actual cases
   Christian humility and charity of course require the greatest caution,
   and leave the judgment to the all-knowing and just God.

   The Athanasian Creed closes the succession of ecumenical symbols;
   symbols which are acknowledged by the entire orthodox Christian world,
   except that Evangelical Protestantism ascribes to them not an absolute,
   but only a relative authority, and reserves the right of freely
   investigating and further developing all church doctrines from the
   inexhaustible fountain of the infallible word of God.

   II. The Origenistic Controversies.

   I. Epiphanius: Haeres. 64. Several Epistles of Epiphanius, Theophilus
   of Alex., and Jerome (in Jerome's Epp. 51 and 87-100, ed. Vallarsi).
   The controversial works of Jerome and Rufinus on the orthodoxy of
   Origen (Rufini Praefatio ad Orig. peri archon; and Apologia s.
   invectivarum in Hieron.; Hieronymi Ep. 84 ad Pammachium et Oceanum de
   erroribus Origenis; Apologia Adv. Rufinum libri iii, written 402-403,
   etc.). Palladius: Vita Johannis Chrysostomi (in Chrysost. Opera, vol.
   xiii. ed. Montfaucon). Socrates: H. E. vi. 3-18. Sozomenus: H. E. viii.
   2-20. Theodoret: H. E. v. 27 sqq. Photius: Biblioth. Cod. 59. Mansi:

   II. Huetius: Origeniana (Opera Orig. vol. iv. ed. De la Rue). Doucin:
   Histoire des mouvements arrivés dans l'église au sujet d'Origène. Par.
   1700. Walch: Historie der Ketzereien. Th. vii. p. 427 sqq. Schröckh:
   Kirchengeschichte, vol. x. 108 sqq. Comp. the monographs Of Redepenning
   and Thomasius on Origen; and Neander: Der heil. Joh. Chrysostomus.
   Berl. 1848, 3d ed. vol. ii. p. 121 sqq. Hefele (R.C.):
   Origenistenstreit, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, vol. vii.
   p. 847 sqq., and Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. p. 76 sqq. O. Zöckler:
   Hieronymus. Gotha, 1865, p. 238 ff; 391 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1499] In striking contrast with this unquestionable historical
   eminence of this Creed is Baur's slighting treatment of it in his work
   of three volumes on the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, where
   he disposes of it in a brief note, vol. ii. p. 33, as a vain attempt to
   vindicate by logical categories the harsh and irreconcilable antagonism
   of unity and triad.

   [1500] In the Latin text we follow chiefly the careful revision of
   Waterland, ch. ix. (Works, vol. iii. p. 221 ff.), who also adds the
   various readings of the best manuscripts, and several parallel passages
   from the church fathers previous to 430, as he pushes the composition
   back before the third ecumenical council (431). We have also compared
   the text of Montfaucon (in his edition of Athanasius) and of Walch
   (Christl. Concordienbuch, 1750). The numbering of verses differs after
   ver. 19. Waterland puts vers. 19 and 20 in one, also vers. 25 and 26,
   89 and 40, 41 and 42, making only forty verses in all. So Montfaucon,
   p. 735 ff. Walch makes forty-four verses.

   [1501] Comp. Augustine, Contra Maximin. Arian. l. ii. c. 3 (Opera, tom.
   viii. f. 729, ed. Venet.): "Haec est fides nostra, quoniam haec est
   fides recta, quae etiam catholica nuncupatur."

   [1502] Some manuscripts: "inviolabilemque."

   [1503] "Absque dubio is wanting in the Cod. reg. Paris., according to
   Waterland.

   [1504] Gregory Naz. Orat. xxiii. p. 422: ... monada en triadi, kai
   triada en monadi proskunoumenen.

   [1505] A similar sentence occurs in two places in the Commonitorium of
   Vincentius of Lerinum ( 450): "Ecclesia vero catholica unam divinitatem
   in trinitatis plenitudine et trinitatis aequalitatem, in una atque
   eadem majestate veneratur, ut neque singularitas substantiae personarum
   confundat proprietatem, neque item trinitatis distinctio unitatem
   separet deitatis " (cap. 18 and 22). See the comparative tables in
   Montfaucon in Opera Athan. tom. ii. p. 725 sq. From this and two other
   parallels Anthelmi (Disquisitio de Symb. Athan., Par. 1698) has
   inferred that Vincentius of Lerinum was the author of the Athanasian
   Creed. But such arguments point much more strongly to Augustine, who
   affords many more parallels, and from whom Vincentius drew.

   [1506] Vincentius Lirl.c. cap. 19: "Alia est persona Patris, alia
   Patris, alia Spiritus Sancti. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus S. non
   alia et alia, sed una eademque natura." A similar passage is quoted by
   Waterland from the Symbolum Pelagii.

   [1507] Augustine, tom. viii. p. 744 (ed. Venet.): "Patris et Filii et
   Spiritus Sancti unam virtutem, unam substantiam, unam deitatem, unam
   majestatem, unam gloriam."

   [1508] Faustini Fid. (cited by Waterland): "Qualis est Pater secundum
   substantiam, talem genuit Filium," etc.

   [1509] So Augustine, except that he has magnus for immensus. Comp.
   below. lmmensus is differently translated in the different Greek
   copies: (akataleptos. apeiros ,and ametros,--a proof that the original
   is Latin. Venantius Fortunatus, in his Expositio fidei Catholicae,
   asserts: "Non est mensurabuis in sua natura, quia illocaus est,
   incircumscriptus, ubique totus, ubique praesens, ubique potens." The
   word is thus quite equivalent to omnipresent. The translation "
   incomprehensible" in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is inaccurate,
   and probably came from the Greek translation akataleptos.

   [1510] Augustine, Op. tom. v. p. 543: "Aeternus Pater, coaeternus
   Filius, coaeternus Spiritus Sanctus."

   [1511] In quite parallel terms Augustine, De trinit, lib. v. cap. 8
   (tom. viii. 837 sq.); At "Magnus Pater, magnus Filius, magnus Spiritus
   S., non tamen tres magni, sed unus magnus ... Et bonus Pater, bonus
   Filius, bonus Spiritus S.; nec tres boni, sed unus bonus; de quo dictum
   est, 'Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus.' ... Itaque omnipotens Pater,
   omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus S.; nec tamen tres omnipotentes,
   sed unus omnipotens, 'ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia, ipsi
   gloria' (Rom. ix. 36)."

   [1512] Comp. Augustine, De trinit. lib. viii. in Prooem. to cap. 1
   "Sicut Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus S.; et bonus P., bonus
   F., bonus Sp. S.; et omnipotens P., omnipotens F., omnipotens Sp. S.;
   nec tamen tres Dii, aut tres boni, aut tree omnipotentes; sed unus
   Deus, bonus, omnipotens, ipse Trinitas."--Serm. 215 (Opera, tom. v. p.
   948): "Unus Pater Deus, unus Filius Deus, unus Spiritus S. Deus: nec
   tamen Pater et F. et Sp. S. tres Dii, sed unus Deus." De trinit. x. c.
   11 (§18); "Haec igitur tria, memoria, intelligentia, voluntas, quoniam
   non sunt tres vitae, sed una vita; nec tres mentes, sed una mens;
   consequenter utique nec tres substantiae sunt, sed una substantia."
   Comp. also Ambrosius, De Spiritu S. iii. 111: "Ergo sanctus Pater,
   sanctus Filius, santus et Spiritus; sed non tres sancti; quia unus est
   Deus sanctus, unus est Dominus;" and similar places.

   [1513] Comp. the above passage from Augustine, and De trinit l.c. 5
   (al. 8): "Et tamen hanc trinitatem non tres Deos, sed unum Deum." A
   similar passage in Vigilius of Tapsus, De trinitate, and in a sermon of
   Caesarius of Arles, which is ascribed to Augustine(v. 399).

   [1514] Augustine: "Non tamen sunt duo Dii et duo Domini secundum formam
   Dei, sed ambo cum Spiritu suo unus est Dominus ... sed simul omnes non
   tres Dominos esse Deos, sed unum Dominum Deum dico." Contra Maximin.
   Arian. 1. ii. c. 2 and 8 (Opera, viii. f. 729).

   [1515] 1 Others read: "Deum ac Dominum."

   [1516] Waterland omits tres, Walch has it.

   [1517] Solo is intended to distinguish the Son from the Holy Ghost, who
   is of the Father and of the Son; thus containing already the Latin
   doctrine of the double procession. Hence some Greek copies strike out
   alone, while others inconsistently retain it.

   [1518] This is manifestly the Latin doctrine of the processio, which
   would be still more plainly expressed if it were said: "sed ab utroque
   procedens." Comp. Augustine, De trinit. lib. xv. cap. 26 (§ 47): "Non
   igitur ab utroque est genitus, sed procedit ab utroque amborum
   Spiritus." Most Greek copies (comp. in Moutfaucon in Athan. Opera, tom.
   ii. p. 728 sqq.) omit et Filio, and read only apo tou patros.

   [1519] Augustine, Contra Maxim. ii. 3 (tom. viii. f. 729): "In
   Trinitate quae Deus est, unus est Pater, non duo vel tres; et unus
   Filius, non duo vel tres; et unus amborum Spiritus, non duo vel tres."

   [1520] August. Serm. 215, tom. v. f. 948: "In hac trinitate non est
   aliud alio majus aut minus, nulla operum separatio, nulla dissimilitude
   substantiae." Waterland quotes also a kindred passage from the Symb.
   Pelagii.

   [1521] So Waterland and the Anglican Liturgy. The Lutheran Book of
   Concord reverses the order, and reads: trinitas in unitate, et unitas
   in trinitate.

   [1522] Ger. Vossius first demonstrated the spuriousness of the
   tradition in his decisive treatise of 1642. Even Roman divines, like
   Quesnel, Dupin, Pagi, Tillemont, Montfaucon, and Muratori, admit the
   spuriousness. Köllner adduces nineteen proofs against the Athanasian
   origin of the Creed, two or three of which are perfectly sufficient
   without the rest. Comp. the most important in my treatise, l.c. p. 592
   ff.

   [1523] Wherever the creed has come into use in the Greek churches, this
   verse has been omitted as a Latin interpolation.

   [1524] Comp. the catalogue of opinions in Waterland, vol. iii. p. 117;
   in Köllner; and in my own treatise. The majority of voices have spoken
   in favor of Vigilius of Tapsus in Africa, a.d.484; others for
   Vincentius of Lerinum, 434; Waterland for Hilaryof Arles, about 430;
   while others ascribe it indefinitely to the North African, or Gallic,
   or Spanish church in the sixth or seventh century. Harvey recently, but
   quite groundlessly, has dated the composition back to the year 401, and
   claims it for the bishop Victricius of Rouen (Hist. and Theol. of the
   Three Creeds, vol. ii. p. 583 f.). He thinks that Augustinequotes from
   it, but this father nowhere alludes to such a symbol; the author of the
   Creed, on the contrary, has taken several passages from Augustine, De
   Trinitate, as well as from Vincentius of Lerinum and other source.
   Comp. the notes to the Creed above, and my treatise, p. 596 ff.

   [1525] On this agreement of the symbolical books of the Evangelical
   churches with the Athanasianum, comp. my treatise, l.c. p. 610 ff.
   Luther considers this Creed the weightiest and grandest production of
   the church since the time of the Apostles. In the Church of England it
   is still sung or chanted in the cathedrals. The Protestant Episcopal
   church in the United States, on the contrary, has excluded it from the
   Book of Common Prayer.
     __________________________________________________________________

   §133. The Orgenistic Controversy in Palestine. Epiphanius, Rufinus, and
   Jerome, a.d. 394-399.

   Between the Arian and the Nestorian controversies and in indirect
   connection with the former, come the vehement and petty personal
   quarrels over the orthodoxy of Origen, which brought no gain, indeed,
   to the development of the church doctrine, yet which have a bearing
   upon the history of theology, as showing the progress of orthodoxy
   under the twofold aspect of earnest zeal for the pure faith, and a
   narrow-minded intolerance towards all free speculation. The
   condemnation of Origen was a death blow to theological science in the
   Greek church, and left it to stiffen gradually into a mechanical
   traditionalism and formalism. We shall confine ourselves, if possible,
   to the points of general interest, and omit the extremely insipid and
   humiliating details of personal invective and calumny.

   It is the privilege of great pioneering minds to set a mass of other
   minds in motion, to awaken passionate sympathy and antipathy, and to
   act with stimulating and moulding power even upon after generations.
   Their very errors are often more useful than the merely traditional
   orthodoxy of unthinking men, because they come from an honest search
   after truth, and provoke new investigation. One of these minds was
   Origen, the most learned and able divine of the ante-Nicene period, the
   Plato or the Schleiermacher of the Greek church. During his life-time
   his peculiar, and for the most part Platonizing, views already aroused
   contradiction, and to the advanced orthodoxy of a later time they could
   not but appear as dangerous heresies. Methodius of Tyre ( 311) first
   attacked his doctrines of the creation and the resurrection; while
   Paulphilus ( 309), from his prison, wrote an apology for Origen, which
   Eusebius afterwards completed. His name was drawn into the Arian
   controversies, and used and abused by both parties for their own ends.
   The question of the orthodoxy of the great departed became in this way
   a vital issue of the day, and rose in interest with the growing zeal
   for pure doctrine and the growing horror of all heresy.

   Upon this question three parties arose: free, progressive disciples,
   blind adherents, and blind opponents. [1526]

   1. The true, independent followers of Origen drew from his writings
   much instruction and quickening, without committing themselves to his
   words, and, advancing with the demands of the time, attained a clearer
   knowledge of the specific doctrines of Christianity than Origen
   himself, without thereby losing esteem for his memory and his eminent
   services. Such men were Pamphilus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus of
   Alexandria, and in a wider sense Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory
   of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa; and among the Latin fathers,
   Hilary, and at first Jerome, who afterwards joined the opponents.
   Gregory of Nyssa, and perhaps also Didymus, even adhered to Origen's
   doctrine of the final salvation of all created intelligences.

   2. The blind and slavish followers, incapable of comprehending the free
   spirit of Origen, clave to the letter, held all his immature and
   erratic views, laid greater stress on them than Origen himself, and
   pressed them to extremes. Such mechanical fidelity to a master is
   always apostasy to his spirit, which tends towards continual growth in
   knowledge. To this class belonged the Egyptian monks in the Nitrian
   mountains; four in particular: Dioscurus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and
   Enthymius, who are known by the name of the "tall brethren," [1527] and
   were very learned.

   3. The opponents of Origen, some from ignorance, others from narrowness
   and want of discrimination, shunned his speculations as a source of the
   most dangerous heresies, and in him condemned at the same time all free
   theological discussion, without which no progress in knowledge is
   possible, and without which even the Nicene dogma would never have come
   into existence. To these belonged a class of Egyptian monks in the
   Scetic desert, with Pachomius at their head, who, in opposition to the
   mysticism and spiritualism of the Origenistic monks of Nitria, urged
   grossly sensuous views of divine things, so as to receive the name of
   Anthropomorphites. The Roman church, in which Origen was scarcely known
   by name before the Arian disputes, shared in a general way the strong
   prejudice against him as an unsound and dangerous writer.

   The leader in the crusade against the bones of Origen was the bishop
   Epiphanius of Salamis (Constantia) in Cyprus ( 403), an honest,
   well-meaning, and by his contemporaries highly respected, but violent,
   coarse, contracted, and bigoted monastic saint and heresy hunter. He
   had inherited from the monks in the deserts of Egypt an ardent hatred
   of Origen as an arch-heretic, and for this hatred he gave documentary
   justification from the numerous writings of Origen in his Panarion, or
   chest of antidotes for eighty heresies, in which he branded him as the
   father of Arianism and many other errors. [1528] Not content with this,
   he also endeavored by journeying and oral discourse to destroy
   everywhere the influence of the long departed teacher of Alexandria,
   and considered himself as doing God and the church the greatest service
   thereby.

   With this object the aged bishop journeyed in 394 to Palestine, where
   Origen was still held in the highest consideration, especially with
   John, bishop of Jerusalem, and with the learned monks Rufinus and
   Jerome, the former of whom was at that time in Jerusalem and the latter
   in Bethlehem. He delivered a blustering sermon in Jerusalem, excited
   laughter, and vehemently demanded the condemnation of Origen. John and
   Rufinus resisted; but Jerome, who had previously considered Origen the
   greatest church teacher after the apostles, and had learned much from
   his exegetical writings, without adopting his doctrinal errors, yielded
   to a solicitude for the fame of his own orthodoxy, passed over to the
   opposition, broke off church fellowship with John, and involved himself
   in a most violent literary contest with his former friend Rufinus;
   which belongs to the chronique scandaleuse of theology. The schism was
   terminated indeed by the mediation of the patriarch Theophilus in 397,
   but the dispute broke out afresh. Jerome condemned in Origen
   particularly his doctrine of pre-existence, of the final conversion of
   the devils, and of demons, and his spiritualistic sublimation of the
   resurrection of the body; while Rufinus, having returned to the West
   (398), translated several works of Origen into Latin, and accommodated
   them to orthodox taste. Both were in fact equally zealous to defend
   themselves against the charge of Origenism, and to fasten it upon each
   other, and this not by a critical analysis and calm investigation of
   the teachings of Origen, but by personal denunciations and miserable
   invectives. [1529]

   Rufinus was cited before pope Anastasius (398-402), who condemned
   Origen in a Roman synod; but he sent a satisfactory defense and found
   an asylum in Aquileia. He enjoyed the esteem of such men as Paulinus of
   Nola and Augustine, and died in Sicily (410).
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1526] Similar parties have arisen with reference to Luther,
   Schleiermacher, and other great theologians and philosophers.

   [1527] Adelphoi makroi, on account of their bodily size.

   [1528] Haeer. 64. Compare also his Epistle to bishop John of Jerusalem,
   written 394 and translated by Jeromeinto Latin (Ep. 51, ed. Vallarsi),
   where he enumerates eight heresies of Origen relating to the trinity,
   the doctrine of man, of angels, of the world, and the last things.

   [1529] 2 Comp. the description of their conduct by Zöckler, Hieronymus,
   p. 396 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 134. The Origenistic Controversy in Egypt and Constantinople.
   Theophilus and Chrysostom a.d. 399-407.

   Meanwhile a second act of this controversy was opened in Egypt, in
   which the unprincipled, ambitious, and intriguing bishop Theophilus of
   Alexandria plays the leading part. This bishop was at first an admirer
   of Origen, and despised the anthropomorphite monks, but afterwards,
   through a personal quarrel with Isidore and the "four tall brethren,"
   who refused to deliver the church funds into his hands, he became an
   opponent of Origen, attacked his errors in several documents (399-403),
   [1530] and pronounced an anathema on his memory, in which he was
   supported by Epiphanius, Jerome, and the Roman bishop Anastasius. At
   the same time he indulged in the most violent measures against the
   Origenistic, monks, and banished them from Egypt. Most of these monks
   fled to Palestine; but some: fifty, among whom were the four tall
   brethren, went to Constantinople, and found there a cordial welcome
   with the bishop John Chrysostom in 401.

   In this way that noble man became involved in the dispute. As an
   adherent of the Antiochian school, and as a practical theologian, he
   had no sympathy with the philosophical speculation of Origen, but he
   knew how to appreciate his merits in the exposition of the Scriptures,
   and was impelled by Christian love and justice to intercede with
   Theophilus in behalf of the persecuted monks, though he did not admit
   them to the holy communion till they proved their innocence.

   Theophilus now set every instrument in motion to overthrow the long
   envied Chrysostom, and employed even Epiphanius, then almost an
   octogenarian, as a tool of his hierarchical plans. This old man
   journeyed in mid-winter in 402 to Constantinople, in the imagination
   that by his very presence he would be able to destroy the
   thousand-headed hydra of heresy, and he would neither hold church
   fellowship with Chrysostom, who assembled the whole clergy of the city
   to greet him, nor pray for the dying son of the emperor, until all
   Origenistic heretics should be banished from the capital, and he might
   publish the anathema from the altar. But he found that injustice was
   done to the Nitrian monks, and soon took ship again to Cyprus, saying
   to the bishops who accompanied him to the sea shore: "I leave to you
   the city, the palace, and hypocrisy; but I go, for I must make great
   haste." He died on the ship in the summer of 403.

   What the honest coarseness of Epiphanius failed to effect, was
   accomplished by the cunning of Theophilus, who now himself travelled to
   Constantinople, and immediately appeared as accuser and judge. He well
   knew how to use the dissatisfaction of the clergy, of the empress
   Eudoxia, and of the court with Chrysostom on account of his moral
   severity and his bold denunciations. [1531] In Chrysostom's own
   diocese, on an estate "at the oak" [1532] in Chalcedon, he held a
   secret council of thirty-six bishops against Chrysostom, and there
   procured, upon false charges of immorality, unchurchly conduct, and
   high treason, his deposition and banishment in 403. [1533] Chrysostom
   was recalled indeed in three days in consequence of an earthquake and
   the dissatisfaction of the people, but was again condemned by a council
   in 404, and banished from the court, because, incensed by the erection
   of a silver statue of Eudoxia close to the church of St. Sophia, and by
   the theatrical performances connected with it, he had with unwise and
   unjust exaggeration opened a sermon on Mark vi. 17 ff., in
   commemoration of John the Baptist with the personal allusion: "Again
   Herodias rages, again she raves, again she dances, and again she
   demands the head of John [this was Chrysostom's own name] upon a
   charger." [1534] From his exile in Cucusus and Arabissus he
   corresponded with all parts of the Christian world, took lively
   interest in the missions in Persia and Scythia, and appealed to a
   general council. His opponents procured from Arcadius an order for his
   transportation to the remote desert of Pityus. On the way thither he
   died at Comana in Pontus, a.d. 407, in the sixtieth year of his age,
   praising God for everything, even for his unmerited persecutions.
   [1535]

   Chrysostom was venerated by the people as a saint, and thirty years
   after his death, by order of Theodosius II. (438), his bones were
   brought back in triumph to Constantinople, and deposited in the
   imperial tomb. The emperor himself met the remains at Chalcedon, fell
   down before the coffin, and in the name of his guilty parents, Arcadius
   and Eudoxia, implored the forgiveness of the holy man. The age could
   not indeed understand and appreciate the bold spirit of Origen, but was
   still accessible to the narrow piety of Epiphanius and the noble
   virtues of Chrysostom.

   In spite of this prevailing aversion of the time to free speculation,
   Origen always retained many readers and admirers, especially among the
   monks in Palestine, two of whom, Domitian and Theodorus Askidas, came
   to favor and influence at the court of Justinian I. But under this
   emperor the dispute on the orthodoxy of Origen was renewed about the
   middle of the sixth century in connection with the controversy on the
   Three Chapters, and ended with the condemnation of fifteen propositions
   of Origen at a council in 544. [1536] Since then no one has ventured
   until recent times to raise his voice for Origen, and many of his works
   have perished.

   With Cyril of Alexandria the theological productivity of the Greek
   church, and with Theodoret the exegetical, became almost extinct. The
   Greeks thenceforth contented themselves for the most part with
   revisions and collections of the older treasures. A church which no
   longer advances, goes backwards, or falls in stagnation.

   III. The Christological Controversies.

   Among the works on the whole field of the Christological controversies
   should be compared especially the already cited works of Petavius (tom.
   iv. De incarnatione Verbi), Walch (Ketzerhistorie, vol. v.-ix.), Baur,
   and Dorner. The special literature will be given at the heads of the
   several sections.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1530] In his Epistola Synodica ad episcopos Palaestinos et ad Cyprios,
   400, and in three successive Epistolae Paschales, from 401-403, all
   translated by Jeromeand forming Epp. 92, 96, 98, and l00 of his
   Epistles, according to the order of Vallarsi. They enter more deeply
   into the topics of the controversy than Jerome's own writings against
   Origen. Jerome(Ep. 99 ad Theophilum) pays him the compliment:
   "Rhetoricae eloquentiae jungis philosophos, et Demosthenem atque
   Platonem nobis consocias."

   [1531] According to Socrates (H.E. vi. 4) another special reason for
   the disaffection was, that Chrysostomalways ate alone, and never
   accepted an invitation to a banquet, either on account of dyspepsia or
   habitual abstemiousness. But by the people he was greatly esteemed and
   loved as a man and as a preacher.

   [1532] Pros ten drun, Synodus ad Quercum. The estate belonged to the
   imperial prefect Rufinus, and had a palace, a large church, and a
   monastery. Sozomen, viii. 17.

   [1533] Among the twenty-nine charges were these: that Chrysostomcalled
   the Saint Epiphanius a fool and demon; that he wrote a book full of
   abuse of the clergy; that he received visits from females without
   witnesses; that he bathed alone and ate alone! See Hefele, ii. p. 78
   sqq.

   [1534] Palin Herodias mainetai, palin tarassetai, palin orcheitai,
   palin epi pinaki ten kephalen tou Ioannou zetei labein.Comp. Socr. H.
   E. vi. 18. Eudoxia was a young and beautiful woman, who despised her
   husband, and indulged her passions. She died four years after the birth
   of her son Theodosius the Younger, whose true father is said to have
   been the comes John. Comp, Gibbon, ch. xxxii.

   [1535] Doxa to Theo panton heneken, were his last words, the motto of
   his life and work.

   [1536] It was only a sunodos endemousa, i.e., a council of the bishops
   just then in Constantinople, and is not to be confounded with the fifth
   ecumenical council at Constantinople in 553, which decided only the
   controversy of the Three Chapters. Comp. Mansi, Conc. tom. ix. fol.
   395-399 (where the fifteen canons are given); Walch, Ketzerhistorie,
   vii. 660; and Gieseler, K. Gesch. i. ii. p. 368.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 135. General View. Alexandrian and Antiochian Schools.

   The Trinity and Christology, the two hardest problems and most
   comprehensive dogmas of theology, are intimately connected. Hence the
   settlement of the one was immediately followed by the agitation and
   study of the other. The speculations on the Trinity had their very
   origin in the study of the person of Christ, and led back to it again.
   The point of union is the idea of the incarnation of God. But in the
   Arian controversy the Son of God was viewed mainly in his essential,
   pre-mundane relation to the Father; while in the Christological contest
   the incarnate historical Christ and the constitution of his
   divine-human person was the subject of dispute.

   The notion of redemption, which forms the centre of Christian thinking,
   demands a Redeemer who unites in his person the nature of God and the
   nature of man, yet without confusion. In order to be a true Redeemer,
   the person must possess all divine attributes, and at the same time
   enter into all relations and conditions of mankind, to raise them to
   God. Four elements thus enter into the orthodox doctrine concerning
   Christ: He is true God; be is true man; he is one person; and the
   divine and human in him, with all the personal union and harmony,
   remain distinct.

   The result of the Arian controversies was the general acknowledgment of
   the essential and eternal deity of Christ. Before the close of that
   controversy the true humanity of Christ at the same time came in again
   for treatment; the church having indeed always maintained it against
   the Gnostic Docetism, but now, against a partial denial by
   Apollinarianism, having to express it still more distinctly and lay
   stress on the reasonable soul. And now came into question, further, the
   relation between the divine and the human natures in Christ. Origen,
   who gave the impulse to the Arian controversy, had been also the first
   to provoke deeper speculation on the mystery of the person of Christ.
   But great obscurity and uncertainty had long prevailed in opinions on
   this great matter. The orthodox Christology is the result of powerful
   and passionate conflicts. It is remarkable that the notorious rabies
   theologorum has never in any doctrinal controversy so long and
   violently raged as in the controversies on the person of the
   Reconciler, and in later times on the love-feast of reconciliation.

   The Alexandrian school of theology, with its characteristic speculative
   and mystical turn, favored a connection of the divine and human in the
   act of the incarnation so close, that it was in danger of losing the
   human in the divine, or at least of mixing it with the divine; [1537]
   while, conversely, the Antiochian or Syrian school, in which the sober
   intellect and reflection prevailed, inclined to the opposite extreme of
   an abstract separation of the two natures. [1538] In both cases the
   mystery of the incarnation, the veritable and permanent union of the
   divine and human in the one person of Christ, which is essential to the
   idea of a Redeemer and Mediator, is more or less weakened or altered.
   In the former case the incarnation becomes a transmutation or mixture
   (sunkrasis) of the divine and human; in the latter, a mere indwelling
   (enoikesis) of the Logos in the man, or a moral union (sunapheia) of
   the two natures, or rather of the two persons.

   It was now the problem of the church, in opposition to both these
   extremes, to assert the personal unity and the distinction of the two
   natures in Christ with equal solicitude and precision. This she did
   through the Christological controversies which agitated the Greek
   church for more than two hundred years with extraordinary violence. The
   Roman church, though in general much more calm, took an equally deep
   interest in this work by some of its more eminent leaders, and twice
   decided the victory of orthodoxy, at the fourth general council and at
   the sixth, by the powerful influence of the bishop of Rome.

   We must distinguish in this long drama five acts:

   1. The Apollinarian controversy, which comes in the close of the Nicene
   age, and is concerned with the full humanity of Christ, that is, the
   question whether Christ, with his human body and human soul (anima
   animans), assumed also a human spirit (nous, pneuma, anima rationalis).

   2. The Nestorian controversy, down to the rejection of the doctrine of
   the double personality of Christ by the third ecumenical council of
   Ephesus, a.d. 431.

   3. The Eutychian controversy, to the condemnation of the doctrine of
   one nature, or more exactly of the absorption of the human in the
   divine nature of Christ; to the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon,
   a.d. 451.

   4. The Monophysite dispute; the partial reaction towards the Eutychian
   theory; down to the fifth general council at Constantinople a.d. 553.

   5. The Monothelite controversy, a.d. 633-680, which terminated with the
   rejection of the doctrine of one will in Christ by the sixth general
   council at Constantinople in 680, and lies this side of our period.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1537] Even Athanasius is not wholly free from this leaning to the
   monophysite view, and speaks of an henosis phusike of the Logos with
   his flesh, and of one incarnate nature of the divine Logos, mia phusis
   tou Theou logou sesarkomene, which with his flesh is to be worshipped;
   see his little tract De incarnatione Dei Verbi (peri tes sarkoseos tou
   Theou logou) in the 3d tom. of the Bened. ed. p. 1. But in the first
   place it must be considered that this tract (which is not to be
   confounded with his large work De incarnatione Verbi Dei, peri tes
   enanthropeseos tou logou, in the first tom. P. i. of the Bened. ed. pp.
   47-97), is by many scholars (Montfaucon, Möhler, Hefele) denied to
   Athanasius, though on insufficient grounds; and further, that at that
   time phusis,ousiaand hupostasiswere often interchanged, and did not
   become sharply distinguished till towards the end of the Nicene age.
   "In the indefiniteness of the notions of phusis and hupostasis," says
   Neander (Dogmengeschichte, i. p. 340), "the Alexandrians were the more
   easily moved, for the sake of the one hupostasis, to concede also only
   one phusisin Christ, and set the henosis phusikeagainst those who
   talked of two natures." Comp. Petavius, De incarn. Verbi, lib. ii. c. 3
   (tom. iv. p. 120, de vocabulis phuseoset hupostaseos); also the
   observations of Dorner, l. c. i. p. 1072, and of Hefele,
   Conciliengesch. ii. p. 128 f. The two Gregories speak, indeed, of duo
   phuseisin Christ, yet at the same time of a sunkrasis, and anakrasis,
   i.e., mingling of the two.

   [1538] Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the head of the
   Antiochian school, compares the union of the divine and human in Christ
   with the marriage union of man and woman, and says that one cannot
   conceive a complete nature without a complete person (hupostasis).
   Comp. Neander, l.c. i. p. 343; Dorner, ii. p. 39 ff.; Fritzsche: De
   Theodori Mopsvest. vita et scriptis, Halae, 1837, and an article by W.
   Möller in Herzog's Encycl. vol. xv. P. 715 ff. Of the works of Theodore
   of Mopsuestia we have only fragments, chiefly in the acts of the fifth
   ecumenical council (in Mansi, Conc. tom. ii. fol. 203 sqq.), and a
   commentary on the twelve Prophets, which cardinal Angelo Mai
   discovered, and edited in 1854 at Rome in his Nova Bibliotheca SS.
   Patrum, tom. vii. Pars i. pp. 1-408, together with some fragments of
   commentaries on New Testament books, edited by Fritzsche, jun., Turici,
   1847; and by Pitra in Spicileg. Solesm. tom. i. Par. 1852.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 136. The Apollinarian Heresy, a.d. 362-381.

   Sources:

   I. Apollinaris: Peri sarkoseos--PeriPisteos --Peri anastaseos--Kata
   kephaleion,--and controversial works against Porphyry, and Eunomius,
   biblical commentaries, and epistles. Only fragments of these remain in
   the answers of Gregory of Nyassa and Theodoret, and in Angelo Mai: Nov.
   Biblioth. Patrum, tom. vii. (Rom. 1854), Pars secunda, pp. 82-91
   (commentary on Ezekiel), in Leontinus Byzantinus, and in the Catenae,
   especially the Catena in Evang. Joh., ed. Corderius, 1630.

   II. Against Apollinaris: Athanasius: Contra Apollinarium, libri ii.
   (Peri sarkoseostou Kuriou hemon I. Ch. kata Apollinariou, in Opera,
   tom. i. pars secunda, pp. 921-955, ed. Bened., and in Thilo's Bibl.
   Patr. Gr. dogm., vol. i. pp. 862-937). This work was written about the
   year 372 against Apollinarianism in the wider sense, without naming,
   Apollinaris or his followers; so that the title above given is wanting
   in the oldest codices. Similar errors, though in like manner without
   direct reference to Apollinaris, and evading his most important tenet,
   were combated by Athanasius in the Epist. ad Epictetum episcopum
   Corinthi contra haereticos (Opp. i. ii. 900 sqq., and in Thilo, i. p.
   820 sqq.), which is quoted even by Epiphanius. Gregory Of Nyssa: Logos
   antirrhetikos pros ta Apollinariou, first edited by L. A. Zacagni from
   the treasures of the Vatican library in the unfortunately incomplete
   Collectanea monumentorum veterum ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae, Romae,
   1698, pp. 123-287, and then by Gallandi, Bibliotheca Vet. Patrum, tom.
   vi. pp. 517-577. Gregory Naz.: Epist. ad Nectarium, and Ep. i. and ii.
   ad Cledonium (or Orat. 46 and 51-52; comp. Ullmann's Gregor v. Naz. p.
   401 sqq.). Basilius M.: Epist. 265 (a.d. 377), in the new Bened. ed. of
   his Opera, Par. 1839, tom. iii. Pars ii. p. 591 sqq. Epiphanius: Haer.
   77. Theodoret: Fabul. haer. iv. 8; v. 9; and Diolog. i.-Iii.

   Literature.

   Dion. Petavius: De incarnatione Verbi, lib. i. cap. 6 (in the fourth
   vol. of the Theologicorum dogmatum, pp. 24-34, ed. Par. 1650). Jac.
   Basnage: Dissert. de Hist. haer. Apollinar. Ultraj. 1687. C. W. F.
   Walch: l.c. iii. 119-229. Baur: l.c. vol. i. pp. 585-647. Dorner: l.c.
   i. pp. 974-1080. H. Voigt: Die Lehre des Athanasius, &c. Bremen, 1861.
   Pp. 306-345.

   Apollinaris, [1539] bishop of Laodicea in Syria, was the first to apply
   the results of the trinitarian discussions of the Nicene age to
   Christology, and to introduce the long Christological controversies. He
   was the first to call the attention of the Church to the psychical and
   pneumatic side of the humanity of Christ, and by contradiction brought
   out the doctrine of a reasonable human soul in him more clearly and
   definitely than it had before been conceived.

   Apollinaris, like his father (Apollinaris the Elder, who was a native
   of Alexandria, and a presbyter in Laodicea), was distinguished for
   piety, classical culture, a scholarly vindication of Christianity
   against Porphyry and the emperor Julian, and adhesion to the Nicene
   faith. He was highly esteemed, too, by Athanasius, who, perhaps through
   personal forbearance, never mentions him by name in his writings
   against his error.

   But in his zeal for the true deity of Christ, and his fear of a double
   personality, he fell into the error of denying his integral humanity.
   Adopting the psychological trichotomy, he attributed to Christ a human
   body, and a human (animal) soul, [1540] but not a human spirit or
   reason; [1541] putting the divine Logos in the place of the human
   spirit. In opposition to the idea of a mere connection of the Logos
   with the man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic unity of the two,
   and so a true incarnation; but he sought this at the expense of the
   most important constituent of man. He reaches only a theos sarkophoros,
   as Nestorianism only an anthropos theophoros, instead of the proper
   theanthropos. He appealed to the fact that the Scripture says, the word
   was made flesh--not spirit; [1542] God was manifest in the flesh, &c.;
   to which Gregory Nazianzen justly replied that in these passages the
   term sarxwas used by synecdoche for the whole human nature. In this way
   Apollinaris established so close a connection of the Logos with human
   flesh, that all the divine attributes were transferred to the human
   nature, and all the human attributes to the divine, and the two were
   merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could speak of a crucifixion
   of the Logos, and a worship of his flesh. He made Christ a middle being
   between God and man, in whom, as it were, one part divine and two parts
   human were fused in the unity of a new nature. [1543]

   Epiphanius expresses himself concerning the beginning of the
   controversy in these unusually lenient and respectful terms: "Some of
   our brethren, who are in high position, and who are held in great
   esteem with us and all the orthodox, have thought that the spirit (ho
   nous) should be excluded from the manifestation of Christ in the flesh,
   and have preferred to hold that our Lord Christ assumed flesh and soul,
   but not our spirit, and therefore not a perfect man. The aged and
   venerable Apollinaris of Laodicea, dear even to the blessed father
   Athanasius, and in fact to all the orthodox has been the first to frame
   and promulgate this doctrine. At first, when some of his disciples
   communicated it to us, we were unwilling to believe that such a man
   would put this doctrine in circulation. We supposed that the disciples
   had not understood the deep thoughts of so learned and so discerning a
   man, and had themselves fabricated things which he did not teach," &c.

   So early as 362, a council at Alexandria rejected this doctrine (though
   without naming the author), and asserted that Christ possessed a
   reasonable soul. But Apollinaris did not secede from the communion of
   the Church, and begin to form a sect of his own, till 375. He died in
   390. His writings, except numerous fragments in the works of his
   opponents, are lost.

   Apollinaris, therefore, taught the deity of Christ, but denied the
   completeness (teleiotes) of his humanity, and, taking his departure
   from the Nicene postulate of the homoousion ran into the Arian heresy,
   which likewise put the divine Logos in the place of the human spirit in
   Christ, but which asserted besides this the changeableness (treptotes)
   of Christ; while Apollinaris, on the contrary, aimed to establish more
   firmly the unchangeableness of Christ, to beat the Arians with their
   own weapons, and provide a better vindication of the Nicene dogma. He
   held the union of full divinity with full humanity in one person,
   therefore, of two wholes in one whole, to be impossible. [1544] He
   supposed the unity of the person of Christ, and at the same time his
   sinlessness, could be saved only by the excision of the human spirit;
   since sin has its seat, not in the will-less soul, nor in the body, but
   in the intelligent, free, and therefore changeable will or spirit of
   man. He also charged the Church doctrine of the full humanity of Christ
   with limiting the atoning suffering of Christ to the human nature, and
   so detracting from the atoning virtue of the work of Christ; for the
   death of a man could not destroy death. The divine nature must
   participate in the suffering throughout. His opponents, for this
   reason, charged him with making deity suffer and die. He made, however,
   a distinction between two sides of the Logos, the one allied to man and
   capable of suffering, and the other allied to God and exalted above all
   suffering. The relation of the divine pneumatic nature in Christ to the
   human psychical and bodily nature Apollinaris illustrated by the
   mingling of wine and water, the glowing fire in the iron, and the union
   of soul and body in man, which, though distinct, interpenetrate and
   form one thing.

   His doctrine, however, in particulars, is variously represented, and
   there arose among his disciples a complex mass of opinions, some of
   them differing strongly from one another. According to one statement
   Apollinaris asserted that Christ brought even his human nature from
   heaven, and was from eternity ensarkos; according to another this was
   merely an opinion of his disciples, or an unwarranted inference of
   opponents from his assertion of an eternal determination to
   incarnation, and from his strong emphasizing of the union of the Logos
   with the flesh of Christ, which allowed that even the flesh might be
   worshipped without idolatry. [1545]

   The Church could not possibly accept such a half Docetistic
   incarnation, such a mutilated and stunted humanity of Christ, despoiled
   of its royal head, and such a merely partial redemption as this
   inevitably involved. The incarnation of the Logos is his becoming
   completely man. [1546] It involves, therefore, his assumption of the
   entire undivided nature of man, spiritual and bodily, with the sole
   exception of sin, which in fact belongs not to the original nature of
   man, but has entered from without, as a foreign poison, through the
   deceit of the devil. Many things in the life of Jesus imply a
   reasonable soul: sadness, anguish, and prayer. The spirit is just the
   most essential and most noble constituent of man, the controlling
   principle, [1547] and it stands in the same need of redemption as the
   soul and the body. Had the Logos not assumed the human spirit, he would
   not have been true man at all, and could not have been our example. Nor
   could he have redeemed the spirit; and a half-redemption is no
   redemption at all. To be a full Redeemer, Christ must also be fully
   man, teleios anthropos. This was the weighty doctrinal result of the
   Apollinarian controversy.

   Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, and Epiphanius combated the
   Apollinarian error, but with a certain embarrassment, attacking it
   rather from behind and from the flank, than in front, and unprepared to
   answer duly its main point, that two integral persons cannot form one
   person. The later orthodox doctrine surmounted this difficulty by
   teaching the impersonality of the human nature of Christ, and by making
   the personality of Christ to reside wholly in the Logos.

   The councils at Rome under Damasus, in 377 and 378, and likewise the
   second ecumenical council, in 381, condemned the Apollinarians. [1548]
   Imperial decrees pursued them, in 388, 397, and 428. Some of them
   returned into the catholic church; others mingled with the
   Monophysites, for whose doctrine Apollinaris had, in some measure,
   prepared the way.

   With the rejection of this error, however, the question of the proper
   relation of the divine and human natures in Christ was not yet solved,
   but rather for the first time fairly raised. Those church teachers
   proved the necessity of a reasonable human soul in Christ. But
   respecting the mode of the union of the two natures their views were
   confused and their expressions in some cases absolutely incorrect and
   misleading. [1549] It was through the succeeding stages of the
   Christological controversies that the church first reached a clear
   insight into this great mystery: God manifest in the flesh.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1539] The name is usually written Apollinaris, even by Petavius, Baur,
   and Dorner, and by all English writers. We have no disposition to
   disturb the established usage in a matter of so little moment. But the
   Greek fathers always write Apollinarios, and hence Apollinarius (as in
   Jerome, De viris illustr., c. 104) is more strictly correct.

   [1540] Soma.

   [1541] Psuche alogos, the inward vitality which man has in common with
   animals.

   [1542] Nous, pneuma, or the psuche logike, anima rationalis, the
   motive, self-active, free element, the autokineton, the thinking and
   willing, immortal spirit, which distinguishes man from animals.
   Apollinaris followed the psychological trichotomy of Plato. Ho
   anthropos, says he in Gregory of Nyssa, heis estin ek pneumatos kai
   phuches kai somatos , for which he quotes 1 Thess. v. 23, and Gal. v.
   17. But in another fragment he designates the whole spiritual principle
   in man by psuche, and makes the place of it in Christ to be supplied by
   the Logos. Comp. the passages in Gieseler, vol. i. Div. ii. p. 73 (4th
   ed.). From this time the triple division of human nature was unjustly
   accounted heterodox.

   [1543] He even ventured to adduce created analogies, such as the mule,
   midway between the horse and the ass; the grey color, a mixture of
   white and black; and spring in distinction from winter and summer.
   Christ says he, is oute anthropos holos , oute theos, alla theou kai
   anthropou mixis.

   [1544] The result of this construction he called anthropotheos, a sort
   of monstrosity, which he put in the same category with the mythological
   figures of the minotaur, the well-known Cretan monster with human body
   and bull's head, or the body of a bull and the head of a man. But the
   Apollinarian idea of the union of the Logos with a truncated human
   nature might be itself more justly compared with this monster.

   [1545] Dorner, who has treated this section of the history of
   Christology, as well as others, with great thoroughness, says, i. 977:
   "That the school of Apollinaris did not remain in all points consistent
   with itself, nor true to its founder, is certain; but it is less
   certain whether Apollinaris himself always taught the same thing."
   Theodoret charges him with a change of opinion, which Dorner attributes
   to different stages of the development of his system.

   [1546] Esarkosisis at the same time enanthropesis. Christ was really
   anthropos, not merely hos anthropos, as Apollinaris taught on the
   strength of Phil. ii. 7.

   [1547] To kuriotaton.

   [1548] Conc. Constant. i. can. 1, where, with the Arians, semi-Arians,
   Pneumatomachi, Sabellians, and Marcellians or Photinians, the
   Apollinarians also are anathematized.

   [1549] This is true even of Athanasius. Comp. the note on him in § 136,
   p. 706 f.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 137. The Nestorian Controversy, a.d. 428-431.

   Sources.

   I. Nestorius: Homiliai, Sermones; Anathematismi. Extracts from the
   Greek original in the Acts of the council of Ephesus; in a Latin
   translation in Marius Mercator, a North African layman who just then
   resided in Constantinople, Opera, ed. Garnerius, Par. 1673. Pars ii,
   and better ed. Baluzius, Par. 1684; also in Gallandi, Bibl. vet. P. P.
   viii. pp. 615-735, and in Migne's Patrol. tom. 48. Nestorius' own
   account (Evagr. H. E. i. 7) was used by his friend Irenaeus (comes,
   then bishop of Tyre till 448) in his Tragödia s. comm. de rebus in
   synodo Ephesina ac in Oriente toto gestis, which, however, is lost; the
   documents attached to it were revised in the 6th century in the
   Synodicon adversus tragödiam Irenaei, in Mansi, tom. v. fol. 731 sqq.
   In favor of Nestorius, or at least of his doctrine, Theodoret ( 457) in
   his works against Cyril, and in three dialogues entitled
   Heranistes(Beggar). Comp. also the fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
   ( 429).

   II. Against Nestorius: Cyril of Alex.: Anathematismoi, Five Books kata
   Nestoriou, and several Epistles against Nest., and Theod., in vol. vi.
   of Aubert's ed. of his Opera, Par. 1638 (in Migne's ed. t. ix.).
   Socrates: vii. c. 29-35 (written after 431, but still before the death
   of Nestorius; comp. c. 84). Evagrius: H. E. i. 2-7. Liberatus (deacon
   of Carthage about 553): Breviarium causes Nestorianorum et
   Eutychianorum (ed. Gartnier, Par. 1675, and printed in Gallandi, Bibl.
   vet. Patr. tom. xii. pp. 121-161). Leontinus Byzant. (monachus): De
   sectis; and contra Nestorium et Eutychen (in Gallandi, Bibl. tom. xii.
   p. 625 sqq., and 658-700). A complete collection of all the acts of the
   Nestorian controversy in Mansi, tom. iv. fol. 567 sqq., and tom. v.
   vii. ix.

   Later Literature.

   Petavius: Theolog. dogmatum tom. iv. (de incarnations), lib. i. c. 7
   sqq. Jo. Garnier: De haeresi et libris Nestorii (in his edition of the
   Opera Marii Mercator. Par. 1673, newly edited by Migne, Par. 1846).
   Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the R. E. ch. 41. P. E. Jablonski: De
   Nestorianismo. Berol. 1724. Gengler (R.C.): Ueber die Verdammung des
   Nestorius (Tübinger Quartalschrift, 1835, No. 2). Schröckh: K.
   Geschichte, vol. xviii. pp. 176-312. Walch: Ketzerhist. v. 289-936.
   Neander: K. Gesch. vol. iv. pp. 856-992. Gieseler, vol. i. Div. ii. pp.
   131 ff. (4th ed.). Baur: Dreieinigkeit, vol. i. 693-777. Dorner:
   Christologie, vol. ii. pp. 60-98. Hefele (R.C.): Conciliengesch., vol.
   ii. pp. 134:ff. H. H. Milman: History of Latin Christianity, vol. i.
   ch. iii. pp. 195-252. (Stanley, in his History of the Eastern Church,
   has seen fit to ignore the Nestorian, and the other Christological
   controversies--the most important in the history of the Greek church!)
   Comp. also W. Möller: Article Nestorius, in Herzog's Theol. Encykl.
   vol. x. (1858) pp. 288-296, and the relevant sections in the works on
   Doctrine History.

   Apollinarianism, which sacrificed to the unity of the person the
   integrity of the natures, at least of the human nature, anticipated the
   Monophysite heresy, though in a peculiar way, and formed the precise
   counterpart to the Antiochian doctrine, which was developed about the
   same time, and somewhat later by Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus (died 394),
   and Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (393-428), and which held the divine
   and human in Christ so rigidly apart as to make Christ, though not
   professedly, yet virtually a double person.

   From this school proceeded Nestorius, the head and martyr of the
   Christological heresy which bears his name. His doctrine differs from
   that of Theodore of Mopsuestia only in being less speculative and more
   practical, and still less solicitous for the unity of the person of
   Christ. [1550] He was originally a monk, then presbyter in Antioch, and
   after 428 patriarch of Constantinople. In Constantinople a second
   Chrysostom was expected in him, and a restorer of the honor of his
   great predecessor against the detraction of his Alexandrian rival. He
   was an honest man, of great eloquence, monastic piety, and the spirit
   of a zealot for orthodoxy, but impetuous, vain, imprudent, and wanting
   in sound, practical judgment. In his inaugural sermon he addressed
   Theodosius II. with these words: "Give me, O emperor, the earth
   purified of heretics, and I will give thee heaven for it; help me to
   fight the heretics, and I will help thee to fight the Persians." [1551]

   He immediately instituted violent measures against Arians, Novatians,
   Quartodecimanians, and Macedonians, and incited the emperor to enact
   more stringent laws against heretics. The Pelagians alone, with whose
   doctrine of free will (but not of original sin) he sympathized, he
   treated indulgently, receiving to himself Julian of Eclanum,
   Coelestius, and other banished leaders of that party, interceding for
   them in 429 with the emperor and with the pope Celestine, though, on
   account of the very unfavorable reports concerning Pelagianism which
   were spread by the layman Marius Mercator, then living in
   Constantinople, his intercessions were of no avail. By reason of this
   partial contact of the two, Pelagianism was condemned by the council of
   Ephesus together with Nestorianism.

   But now Nestorius himself fell out with the prevailing faith of the
   church in Constantinople. The occasion was his opposition to the
   certainly very bold and equivocal expression mother of God, which had
   been already sometimes applied to the virgin Mary by Origen, Alexander
   of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, and others, and which, after the
   Arian controversy, and with the growth of the worship of Mary, passed
   into the devotional language of the people. [1552]

   It was of course not the sense, or monstrous nonsense, of this term,
   that the creature bore the Creator, or that the eternal Deity took its
   beginning from Mary; which would be the most absurd and the most wicked
   of all heresies, and a shocking blasphemy; but the expression was
   intended only to denote the indissoluble union of the divine and human
   natures in Christ, and the veritable incarnation of the Logos, who took
   the human nature from the body, of Mary, came forth God-Man from her
   womb, and as God-Man suffered on the cross. For Christ was borne as a
   person, and suffered as a person; and the personality in Christ resided
   in his divinity, not in his humanity. So, in fact, the reasonable soul
   of man, which is the centre of the human personality, participates in
   the suffering and the death-struggle of the body, though the soul
   itself does not and cannot die.

   The Antiochian theology, however, could not conceive a human nature
   without a human personality, and this it strictly separated from the
   divine Logos. Therefore Theodore of Mopsuestia had already disputed the
   term theotokos with all earnestness. "Mary," says he, "bore Jesus, not
   the Logos, for the Logos was, and continues to be, omnipresent, though
   he dwelt in Jesus in a special manner from the beginning. Therefore
   Mary is strictly the mother of Christ, not the mother of God. Only in a
   figure, per anaphoram, can she be called also the mother of God,
   because God was in a peculiar sense in Christ. Properly speaking, she
   gave birth to a man in whom the union with the Logos had begun, but was
   still so incomplete that he could not yet (till after his baptism) be
   called the Son of God." He even declared it "insane" to say that God
   was born of the Virgin; "not God, but the temple in which God dwelt,
   was born of Mary."

   In a similar strain Nestorius, and his friend Anastasius, a priest whom
   he had brought with him from Antioch, argued from the pulpit against
   the theotokon. Nestorius claimed that he found the controversy already
   existing in Constantinople, because some were calling Mary mother of
   God (theotokos), others, mother of Man (anthropotokos). He proposed the
   middle expression, mother of Christ (Christotokos), because Christ was
   at the same time God and man. He delivered several discourses on this
   disputed point. "You ask," says he in his first sermon, "whether Mary
   may be called mother of God. Has God then a mother? If so, heathenism
   itself is excusable in assigning mothers to its gods; but then Paul is
   a liar, for he said of the deity of Christ that it was without father,
   without mother, and without descent. [1553] No, my dear sir, Mary did
   not bear God; ... the creature bore not the uncreated Creator, but the
   man who is the instrument of the Godhead; the Holy Ghost conceived not
   the Logos, but formed for him, out of the virgin, a temple which he
   might inhabit (John ii. 21). The incarnate God did not die, but
   quickened him in whom he was made flesh .... This garment, which he
   used, I honor on account of the God which was covered therein and
   inseparable therefrom; ... I separate the natures, but I unite the
   worship. Consider what this must mean. He who was formed in the womb of
   Mary, was not himself God, but God assumed him [assumsit, i.e., clothed
   himself with humanity], and on account of Him who assumed, he who was
   assumed is also called God." [1554]

   From this word the Nestorian controversy took its rise; but this word
   represented, at the same time, a theological idea and a mighty
   religious sentiment; it was intimately connected with the growing
   veneration of Mary; it therefore struck into the field of devotion,
   which lies much nearer the people than that of speculative theology;
   and thus it touched the most vehement passions. The word theotokos was
   the watchword of the orthodox party in the Nestorian controversy, as
   the term homoousios had been in the Arian; and opposition to this word
   meant denial of the mystery of the incarnation, or of the true union of
   the divine and human natures in Christ.

   And unquestionably the Antiochian Christology, which was represented by
   Nestorius, did not make the Logos truly become man. It asserted indeed,
   rightly, the duality of the natures, and the continued distinction
   between them; it denied, with equal correctness, that God, as such,
   could either be born, or suffer and die; but it pressed the distinction
   of the two natures to double personality. It substituted for the idea
   of the incarnation the idea of an assumption of human nature, or rather
   of an entire man, into fellowship with the Logos, [1555] and an
   indwelling of Godhead in Christ. [1556] Instead of God-Man, [1557] we
   have here the idea of a mere God-bearing man; [1558] and the person of
   Jesus of Nazareth is only the instrument or the temple, [1559] in which
   the divine Logos dwells. The two natures form not a personal unity,
   [1560] but only a moral unity, an intimate friendship or conjunction.
   [1561] They hold an outward, mechanical relation to each other, [1562]
   in which each retains its peculiar attributes, [1563] forbidding any
   sort of communicatio idiomatum. This union is, in the first place, a
   gracious condescension on the part of God, [1564] whereby the Logos
   makes the man an object of the divine pleasure; and in the second
   place, an elevation of the man to higher dignity and to sonship with
   God. [1565] By virtue of the condescension there arises, in the third
   place, a practical fellowship of operation, [1566] in which the
   humanity becomes the instrument and temple of the deity and the henosis
   schetikecuIminates. Theodore of Mopsuestia, the able founder of the
   Antiochian Christology, set forth the elevation of the man to sonship
   with God (starting from Luke ii. 53) under the aspect of a gradual
   moral process, and made it dependent on the progressive virtue and
   meritoriousness of Jesus, which were completed in the resurrection, and
   earned for him the unchangeableness of the divine life as a reward for
   his voluntary victory of virtue.

   The Antiochian and Nestorian theory amounts therefore, at bottom, to a
   duality of person in Christ, though without clearly avowing it. It
   cannot conceive the reality of the two natures without a personal
   independence for each. With the theanthropic unity of the person of
   Christ it denies also the theanthropic unity of his work, especially of
   his sufferings and death; and in the same measure it enfeebles the
   reality of redemption. [1567]

   From this point of view Mary, of course, could be nothing more than
   mother of the man Jesus, and the predicate theotokos, strictly
   understood, must appear absurd or blasphemous. Nestorius would admit no
   more than that God passed through (transiit) the womb of Mary.

   This very war upon the favorite shibboleth of orthodoxy provoked the
   bitterest opposition of the people and of the monks, whose sympathies
   were with the Alexandrian theology. They contradicted Nestorius in the
   pulpit, and insulted him on the street; while he, returning evil for
   evil, procured corporal punishments and imprisonment for the monks, and
   condemned the view of his antagonists at a local council in 429. [1568]

   His chief antagonist in Constantinople was Proclus, bishop of Cyzicum,
   perhaps an unsuccessful rival of Nestorius for the patriarchate, and a
   man who carried the worship of Mary to an excess only surpassed by a
   modern Roman enthusiast for the dogma of the immaculate conception. In
   a bombastic sermon in honor of the Virgin [1569] he praised her as "the
   spotless treasure-house of virginity; the spiritual paradise of the
   second Adam; the workshop, in which the two natures were annealed
   together; the bridal chamber in which the Word wedded the flesh; the
   living bush of nature, which was unharmed by the fire of the divine
   birth; the light cloud which bore him who sat between the Cherubim; the
   stainless fleece, bathed in the dews of Heaven, with which the Shepherd
   clothed his sheep; the handmaid and the mother, the Virgin and Heaven."

   Soon another antagonist, far more powerful, arose in the person of the
   patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, a learned, acute, energetic, but
   extremely passionate, haughty, ambitious, and disputatious prelate.
   Moved by interests both personal and doctrinal, he entered the field,
   and used every means to overthrow his rival in Constantinople, as his
   like-minded uncle and predecessor, Theophilus, had overthrown the noble
   Chrysostom in the Origenistic strife. The theological controversy was
   at the same time a contest of the two patriarchates. In personal
   character Cyril stands far below Nestorius, but he excelled him in
   knowledge of the world, shrewdness, theological learning and acuteness,
   and had the show of greater veneration for Christ and for Mary on his
   side; and in his opposition to the abstract separation of the divine
   and human he was in the right, though he himself pressed to the verge
   of the opposite error of mixing or confusing the two natures in Christ.
   [1570] In him we have a striking proof that the value of a doctrine
   cannot always be judged by the personal worth of its representatives.
   God uses for his purposes all sorts of instruments, good, bad, and
   indifferent.

   Cyril first wrote to Nestorius; then to the emperor, the empress
   Eudokia, and the emperor's sister Pulcheria, who took lively interest
   in church affairs; finally to the Roman bishop Celestine; and he warned
   bishops and churches east and west against the dangerous heresies of
   his rival. Celestine, moved by orthodox instinct, flattered by the
   appeal to his authority, and indignant at Nestorius for his friendly
   reception of the exiled Pelagians, condemned his doctrine at a Roman
   council, and deposed him from the patriarchal chair, unless he should
   retract within ten days (430).

   As Nestorius persisted in his view, Cyril, despising the friendly
   mediation of the patriarch John of Antioch, hurled twelve anathemas, or
   formulas of condemnation, at the patriarch of Constantinople from a
   council at Alexandria by order of the pope (430). [1571]

   Nestorius replied with twelve counter-anathemas, in which he accused
   his opponents of the heresy of Apollinaris. [1572] Theodoret of Cyros,
   the learned expositor and church historian, also wrote against Cyril at
   the instance of John of Antioch.

   The controversy had now become so general and critical, that it could
   be settled only by an ecumenical council.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1550] So Dorner also states the difference, vol. ii. p. 62 f.

   [1551] Socrates, H. E., vii. 29.

   [1552] TheotokosDeipara, genitrix Dei, mater Dei. On the earlier use of
   this word comp. Petavius: De incarnatione, lib. v. c. 15 (tom. iv. p.
   47 1 sqq., Paris ed. of 1650). In the Bible the expression does not
   occur and only the approximate meter tou kuriou, in Luke i. 43; meter
   Iesou, on the contrary, is frequent. Cyril appeals to Gal. iv. 4: " God
   sent forth his Son, made of a woman." To the Protestant mind theotokos
   is offensive on account of its undeniable connection with the Roman
   Catholic worship of Mary, which certainly reminds us of the pagan
   mothers of gods. Comp. §§ 82 and 83.

   [1553] Heb. vii. 3: apator, ametop, aneu genealogias.

   [1554] In the original in Mansi, iv. 1197; in a Latin translation in
   Marius Mercator, ed. Garnier, Migne, p. 757 ff. Comp. this and similar
   passages also in Hefele, ii. p. 137, and Gieseler, i. 2, 139.

   [1555] Proslepsis. Theodore of Mopsuestia says (Act. Conc. Ephes. in
   Mansi, iv. fol. 1349): Ho despotes theos logos anthropon eilephe
   teleion(hominem perfectum assumpsit), instead of phusin anthropou
   eilephe,or sarx egeneto.

   [1556] Enoikesis, in distinction from ensarkosis.

   [1557] Theanthropos.

   [1558] theophoros, also theodochos, from dechesthai, God-assuming.

   [1559] Instrumentum, templum, naos, a favorite term with the
   Nestorians.

   [1560] Henosis kath hupostasin.

   [1561] Sunapheia, connection, affinity, intercourse, attachment in
   distinction from enosis, true interior union. Cyril of Alexandria
   charges Nestorius, in his Epist. ad Coelestinum: -Pheugei pantachou to
   legein, ten enosin, all onomazei ten sunapheian, oHusper estin ho
   exothen.

   [1562] Henosis schetike, a unity of relation (from schesis, condition,
   relation) in distinction from a henosis phusike, or sunkrasis, physical
   unity or commixture.

   [1563] Idiomata.

   [1564] Henosis kata charin, or kat eudokian.

   [1565] Henosis kat axian, kath huiothesian..

   [1566] Henosis kat energeian

   [1567] Cyril charges upon Nestorius (Epist. ad Coelest.), that he does
   not say the Son of God died and rose again, but always only the man
   Jesus died and rose. Nestorius himself says, in his second homily (in
   Mar. Merc. 763 sq.): It may be said that the Son of God, in the wider
   sense, died, but not that God died. Moreover, the Scriptures, in
   speaking of the birth, passion, and death, never say God, but Christ,
   or Jesus, or the Lord,--all of them names which suit both natures. A
   born, dead, and buried God, cannot be worshipped. Pilate, says he in
   another sermon, did not crucify the Godhead, but the clothing of the
   Godhead, and Joseph of Arimathea did not shroud and bury the Logos (in
   Marius Merc. 789 sqq.).

   [1568] According to a partisan report of Basilius to the emperor
   Theodosius, Nestorius struck, with his own hand, a presumptuous monk
   who forbade the bishop, as an obstinate heretic, to approach the altar,
   and then made him over to the officers, who flogged him through the
   streets and then cast him out of the city.

   [1569] See Mansi, tom iv. 578; and the remarks of Walch, vol. v. 373
   ff.

   [1570] Comp. in particular his assertion of a henosis phusikein the
   third of his Anathematismi against Nestorius; Hefele (ii. 155),
   however, understands by this not a enosis eis mian phusin, but only a
   real union in one being, one existence.

   [1571] Cyrilli Opera, tom. iii. 67; in Mansi, iv. fol. 1067 sqq.; in
   Gieseler, i. ii. p. 143 ff. (§ 88, not. 20); in Hefele, ii. 155 ff.

   [1572] In Marius Mercator, p. 909; Gieseler, i. ii. 145 f.; Hefele, ii.
   158 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 138. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. The Compromise.

   For the Acts of the Council, see Mansi (tom. iv. fol. 567-1482, and a
   part of tom. v.), Harduin, and Fuchs, and an extended history of the
   council and the transactions connected with it in Walch, Schröckh, and
   Hefele (ii. pp. 162-271). We confine ourselves to the decisive points.

   Theodosius II., in connection with his Western colleague, Valentinian
   III., summoned a universal council on Pentecost, a.d. 431, at Ephesus,
   where the worship of the Virgin mother of God had taken the place of
   the worship of the light and life dispensing virgin Diana. This is the
   third of the ecumenical councils, and is held, therefore, by all
   churches, in high regard. But in moral character this council stands
   far beneath that of Nicaea or of the first council of Constantinople.
   An uncharitable, violent, and passionate Spirit ruled the transactions.
   The doctrinal result, also, was mainly only negative; that is to say,
   condemnation of Nestorianism. The positive and ecumenical character of
   the council was really secured only by the subsequent transactions, and
   the union of the dominant party of the council with the protesting
   minority of Oriental bishops. [1573]

   Nestorius came first to Ephesus with sixteen bishops, and with an armed
   escort, as if he were going into battle. He had the imperial influence
   on his side, but the majority of the bishops and the prevailing voice
   of the people in Ephesus, and also in Constantinople, were against him.
   The emperor himself could not be present in person, but sent the
   captain of his body-guard, the comes Candidian. Cyril appeared with a
   numerous retinue of fifty Egyptian bishops, besides monks, parabolani,
   slaves, and seamen, under the banner of St. Mark and of the holy Mother
   of God. On his side was the archbishop Memnon of Ephesus, with forty of
   his Asiatic suffragans and twelve bishops from Pamphilia; and the
   clergy, the monks, and the people of Asia Minor were of the same
   sentiment. The pope of Rome--for the first time at an ecumenical
   council--was represented by two bishops and a priest, who held with
   Cyril, but did not mix in the debates, as they affected to judge
   between the contending parties, and thus maintain the papal authority.
   This deputation, however, did not come in at the beginning. [1574] The
   patriarch John of Antioch, a friend of Nestorius, was detained on the
   long journey with his bishops.

   Cyril refused to wait, and opened the council in the church of St. Mary
   with a hundred and sixty bishops [1575] sixteen days after Pentecost,
   on the 22d of June, in spite of the protest of the imperial
   commissioner. Nestorius was thrice cited to appear, but refused to come
   until all the bishops should be assembled. The council then proceeded
   without him to the examination of the point in dispute, and to the
   condemnation of Nestorius. The bishops unanimously cried: "Whosoever
   does not anathematize Nestorius, let himself be anathema; the true
   faith anathematizes him; the holy council anathematizes him. Whosoever
   holds fellowship with Nestorius, let him be anathema. We all
   anathematize the letter and the doctrines of Nestorius. We all
   anathematize Nestorius and his followers, and his ungodly faith, and
   his ungodly doctrine. We all anathematize Nestorius," &c. [1576] Then a
   multitude of Christological expressions of the earlier fathers and
   several passages from the writings of Nestorius were read, and at the
   close of the first session, which lasted till late in the night, the
   following sentence of deposition was adopted and subscribed by about
   two hundred bishops: "The Lord Jesus Christ, who is blasphemed by him
   [Nestorius], determines through this holy council that Nestorius be
   excluded from the episcopal office, and from all sacerdotal
   fellowship." [1577]

   The people of Ephesus hailed this result with universal jubilee,
   illuminated the city, and accompanied Cyril with torches and censers in
   state to his house. [1578]

   On the following day Nestorius was informed of the sentence of
   deposition in a laconic edict, in which he was called a new Judas. But
   he indignantly protested against the decree, and made complaint in an
   epistle to the emperor. The imperial commissioner declared the decrees
   invalid, because they were made by only a portion of the council, and
   he prevented as far as possible the publication of them.

   A few days after, on the 26th or 27th of June, John of Antioch at last
   reached Ephesus, and immediately, with forty-two bishops of like
   sentiment, among whom was the celebrated Theodoret, held in his
   dwelling, under the protection of the imperial commissioner and a
   body-guard, a counter council or conciliabulum, yielding nothing to the
   haste and violence of the other, deposed Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon
   of Ephesus from all priestly functions, as heretics and authors of the
   whole disorder and declared the other bishops who voted with them
   excommunicate until they should anathematize the heretical propositions
   of Cyril. [1579]

   Now followed a succession of mutual criminations, invectives, arts of
   church diplomacy and politics, intrigues, and violence, which give the
   saddest picture of the uncharitable and unspiritual Christianity of
   that time. But the true genius of Christianity is, of course, far
   elevated above its unworthy organs, and overrules even the worst human
   passions for the cause of truth and righteousness.

   On the 10th of July, after the arrival of the papal legates, who bore
   themselves as judges, Cyril held a second session, and then five more
   sessions (making seven in all), now in the house of Memnon, now in St.
   Mary's church, issuing a number of circular letters and six canons
   against the Nestorians and Pelagians.

   Both parties applied to the weak emperor, who, without understanding
   the question, had hitherto leaned to the side of Nestorius, but by
   public demonstrations and solemn processions of the people and monks of
   Constantinople under the direction of the aged and venerated Dalmatius,
   was awed into the worship of the mother of God. He finally resolved to
   confirm both the deposition of Nestorius and that of Cyril and Memnon,
   and sent one of the highest civil officers, John, to Ephesus, to
   publish this sentence, and if possible to reconcile the contending
   parties. The deposed bishops were arrested. The council, that is the
   majority, applied again to the emperor and his colleague, deplored
   their lamentable condition, and desired the release of Cyril and
   Memnon, who had never been deposed by them, but on the contrary had
   always been held in high esteem as leaders of the orthodox doctrine.
   The Antiochians likewise took all pains to gain the emperor to their
   side, and transmitted to him a creed which sharply distinguished,
   indeed, the two natures in Christ, yet, for the sake of the unconfused
   union of the two (asunchutos heosis), conceded to Mary the disputed
   predicate theotokos.

   The emperor now summoned eight spokesmen from each of the two parties
   to himself to Chalcedon. Among them were, on the one side, the papal
   deputies, on the other John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyros, while
   Cyril and Memnon were obliged to remain at Ephesus in prison, and
   Nestorius at his own wish was assigned to his former cloister at
   Antioch, and on the 25th of October, 431, Maximian was nominated as his
   successor in Constantinople. After fruitless deliberations, the council
   of Ephesus was dissolved in October, 431, Cyril and Memnon set free,
   and the bishops of both parties commanded to go home.

   The division lasted two years longer, till at last a sort of compromise
   was effected. John of Antioch sent the aged bishop Paul of Emisa a
   messenger to Alexandria with a creed which he had already, in a shorter
   form, laid before the emperor, and which broke the doctrinal antagonism
   by asserting the duality of the natures against Cyril, and the
   predicate mother of God against Nestorius. [1580] "We confess," says
   this symbol, which was composed by Theodoret, "that our Lord Jesus
   Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man,
   of a reasonable soul and body subsisting; [1581] as to his Godhead
   begotten of the Father before all time, but as to his manhood, born of
   the Virgin Mary in the end of the days for us and for our salvation; of
   the same essence with the Father as to his Godhead, and of the same
   substance with us as to his manhood; [1582] for two natures are united
   with one another. [1583] Therefore we confess one Christ, one Lord, and
   one Son. By reason of this union, which yet is without confusion,
   [1584] we also confess that the holy Virgin is mother of God, because
   God the Logos was made flesh and man, and united with himself the
   temple [humanity] even from the conception; which temple he took from
   the Virgin. But concerning the words of the Gospel and Epistles
   respecting Christ, we know that theologians apply some which refer to
   the one person to the two natures in common, but separate others as
   referring to the two natures, and assign the expressions which become
   God to the Godhead of Christ, but the expressions of humiliation to his
   manhood." [1585] Cyril assented to this confession, and repeated it
   verbally, with some further doctrinal explanations, in his answer to
   the irenical letter of the patriarch of Antioch, but insisted on the
   condemnation and deposition of Nestorius as the indispensable condition
   of church fellowship. At the same time he knew how to gain the imperial
   court to the orthodox side by all kinds of presents, which, according
   to the Oriental custom of testifying submission to princes by presents,
   were not necessarily regarded as bribes. The Antiochians, satisfied
   with saving the doctrine of two natures, thought it best to sacrifice
   the person of Nestorius to the unity of the church, and to anathematize
   his "wicked and unholy innovations." [1586] Thus in 433 union was
   effected, though not without much contradiction on both sides, nor
   without acts of imperial force.

   The unhappy Nestorius was dragged from the stillness of his former
   cloister, the cloister of Euprepius before the gates of Antioch, in
   which he had enjoyed four years of repose, from one place of exile to
   another, first to Arabia, then to Egypt, and was compelled to drink to
   the dregs the bitter cup of persecution which he himself, in the days
   of his power, had forced upon the heretics. He endured his suffering
   with resignation and independence, wrote his life under the significant
   title of Tragedy, [1587] and died after 439, no one knows where nor
   when. Characteristic of the fanaticism of the times is the statement
   quoted by Evagrius, [1588] that Nestorius, after having his tongue
   gnawed by worms in punishment for his blasphemy, passed to the harder
   torments of eternity. The Monophysite Jacobites are accustomed from
   year to year to cast stones upon his supposed grave in Upper Egypt and
   have spread the tradition that it has never been moistened by the rain
   of heaven, which yet falls upon the evil and the good. The emperor, who
   had formerly favored him, but was now turned entirely against him,
   caused all his writings to be burned, and his followers to be named
   after Simon Magus, and stigmatized as Simonians. [1589]

   The same orthodox zeal turned also upon the writings of Theodore of
   Mopsuestia, the long deceased teacher of Nestorius and father of his
   error. Bishop Rabulas of Edessa ( 435) pronounced the anathema upon him
   and interdicted his writings; and though his successor Ibas (436-457)
   again interested himself in Theodore, and translated several of his
   writings into Syriac (the ecclesiastical tongue of the Persian church),
   yet the persecution soon broke out afresh, and the theological school
   of Edessa where the Antiochian theology had longest maintained its
   life, and whence the Persian clergy had proceeded, was dissolved by the
   emperor Zeno in 489. This was the end of Nestorianism in the Roman
   empire.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1573] It is with reference to this council mainly that Dean Milman
   (Latin Christianity, i. 227) passes the following harsh and sweeping
   judgment on the ecumenical councils of the ancient church: "Nowhere is
   Christianity less attractive, and, if we look to the ordinary tone and
   character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the councils
   of the church. It is in general a fierce collision of two rival
   factions, neither of which will yield, each of which is solemnly
   pledged against conviction. Intrigue, injustice, violence, decisions on
   authority alone, and that the authority of a turbulent majority,
   decisions by wild acclamation rather than after sober inquiry, detract
   from the reverence, and impugn the judgments, at least of the later
   councils. The close is almost invariably a terrible anathema, in which
   it is impossible not to discern the tones of human hatred, of arrogant
   triumph, of rejoicing at the damnation imprecated against the
   humiliated adversary. Even the venerable council of Nicaea commenced
   with mutual accusals and recriminations, which were suppressed by the
   moderation of the emperor; and throughout the account of Eusebius there
   is an adulation of the imperial convert with something of the
   intoxication, it might be of pardonable vanity, at finding themselves
   the objects of royal favor, and partaking in royal banquets. But the
   more fatal error of that council was the solicitation, at least the
   acquiescence in the infliction, of a civil penalty, that of exile,
   against the recusant prelates. The degeneracy is rapid from the council
   of Nicaea to that of Ephesus, where each party came determined to use
   every means of haste, manoeuvre, court influence, bribery, to crush his
   adversary; where there was an encouragement of, if not an appeal to,
   the violence of the populace, to anticipate the decrees of the council;
   where each had his own tumultuous foreign rabble to back his quarrel;
   and neither would scruple at any means to obtain the ratification of
   their anathemas through persecution by the civil government." This is
   but the dark side of the picture. In spite of all human passions and
   imperfections truth triumphed at last, and this alone accounts for the
   extraordinary effect of these ecumenical councils, and the authority
   they still enjoy in the whole Christian world.

   [1574] St Augustinealso was one of the Western bishops who were
   summoned, the emperor having sent a special officer to him; but he had
   died shortly before, on the 28th of August, 430.

   [1575] Before the sentence of deposition came to be subscribed, the
   number had increased to a hundred and ninety-eight. According to the
   Roman accounts Cyril presided in the name and under the commission of
   the pope; but in this case he should have yielded the presidency in the
   second and subsequent sessions, at which the papal legates were
   present; which he did not do.

   [1576] In Mansi, tom. iv. p. 1170 sq.; Hefele, ii. 169.

   [1577] Ho blasphemetheis toinun par autou kurios ;hemon Iesous Christos
   oHurise dia tes parouses hagiotates sunodou, allotrion einai ton auton
   Nestorion tou episkopikou axiomatos kai pantos sullogou hieratikou.
   Mansi, iv. fol. 1211; Hefele, ii. 172.

   [1578] So Cyril himself complacently relates in a letter to his friends
   in Egypt. See Mansi, tom. iv. 1241 sq.

   [1579] The Acts of this counter council in Mansi, tom. iv. 1259 sqq.
   (Acta Conciliabuli). Comp. also Hefele, ii. 178 ff.

   [1580] In Mansi, tom. v. fol. 305; Hefele, ii. 246; and Gieseler, i.
   ii. p. 150

   [1581] . Theon teleion kai anthropon teleion ek psuches logikes(against
   Apollinaris), kai somatos.

   [1582] Homoousion to patri kata ten theoteta, kai homoousion hemin kata
   ten anthropoteta. Here homoousios, at least in the second clause,
   evidently does not imply numerical unity, but only generic unity.

   [1583] Duo gar phuseon henosis;gegone, in opposition to the mia
   phusisof Cyril.

   [1584] . Kata tauten ten tes asunchutou(against Cyril) henoseos
   ennoian.

   [1585] Kai tas men theoprepeis kata ten theoteta tou Christou, tas de
   tapeinas kata ten anthropoteta autou paradidontas.Gieseler says (i. ii.
   p. 152), Nestorius never asserted anything but what agrees with this
   confession which Cyril subscribed. But he pressed the distinction of
   the natures in Christ so far that it amounted, in substance, though not
   in expression, to two persons; he taught not a true becoming man, but
   the union of the Logos with a teleios anthropos, a human person
   therefore not nature; and he constantly denied the theotokos, except in
   an improper sense. His doctrine was unquestionably much distorted by
   his cotemporaries; but so also was the doctrine of Cyril.

   [1586] Tas phaulas autou kai bebelous kainophonias .

   [1587] Fragments in Evagrius, H. E. i. 7, and in the Synodicon adversus
   Tragoediam Irenaei, c. 6. That the book bore the name of Tragedy, is
   stated by Ebedjesu, a Nestorian metropolitan. The imperial
   commissioner, Irenaeus, afterwards bishop of Tyre, a friend of
   Nestorius, composed a book concerning him and the ecclesiastical
   history of his time, likewise under the title of Tragedy, fragments of
   which, in a Latin translation, are preserved in the so-called
   Synodicon, in Mansi, v. 731 sqq.

   [1588] Hist. Eccl. i. 6.

   [1589] For his sad fate and his upright character Nestorius, after
   having been long abhorred, has in modem times, since Luther, found much
   sympathy; while Cyril by his violent conduct has incurred much censure.
   Walch, l.c. v. p. 817 ff., has collected the earlier opinions. Gieseler
   and Neander take the part of Nestorius against Cyril, and think that he
   was unjustly condemned. So also Milman, who would rather meet the
   judgment of the Divine Redeemer loaded with the errors of Nestorius
   than with the barbarities of Cyril, but does not enter into the
   theological merits of the controversy. (History of Latin Christianity,
   i. 210.) Petavius, Baur, Hefele, and Ebrard, on the contrary, vindicate
   Cyril against Nestorius, not as to his personal conduct, which was
   anything but Christian, but in regard to the particular matter in
   question, viz., the defence of the unity of Christ against the division
   of his personality. Dorner (ii. 81 ff.) justly distributes right and
   wrong, truth and error, on both sides, and considers Nestorius and
   Cyril representatives of two equally one-sided conceptions, which
   complement each other. Cyril's strength lay on the religious and
   speculative side of Christology, that of Nestorius on the ethical and
   practical. Kahnis gives a similar judgment, Dogmatik, ii. p. 8 6.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 139. The Nestorians.

   Jos. Sim. Assemani: De Syris Nestorianis, in his Bibliotheca
   Orientalis. Rom. 1719-1728, fol. tom. iii. P. ii. Ebedjesu (Nestorian
   metropolitan of Nisibis, 1318): Liber Margaritae de veritate fidei (a
   defence of Nestorianism), in Ang. Mai's Scrip. vet. nova collect. x.
   ii. 317. Gibbon: Chap. xlvii., near the end. E. Smith and H. G. O.
   Dwight: Researches in Armenia; with a visit to the Nestorian and
   Chaldean Christians of Oormiah and Salmas. 2 vols. Bost. 1833. Justin
   Perkins: A Residence of eight years in Persia. Andover, 1843. Wiltsch:
   Kirchliche Geographie u. Statistik. Berl. 1846, i. 214 ff. Geo. Percy
   Badger: The Nestorians and their Rituals. Illustrated (with colored
   plates), 2 vols. Lond. 1852. H. Newcomb: A Cyclopaedia of Missions. New
   York, 1856, p. 553 ff. Petermann: Article Nestorianer, in Herzog's
   Theol. Encykl. vol. x. (1858), pp. 279-288.

   While most of the heresies of antiquity, Arianism not excepted, have
   been utterly obliterated from history, and only raise their heads from
   time to time as individual opinions under peculiar modifications, the
   Christological heresies of the fifth century, Nestorianism and
   Monophysitism, continue in organized sects to this day. These
   schismatic churches of the East are the petrified remains or ruins of
   important chapters in the history of the ancient church. They are sunk
   in ignorance and superstition; but they are more accessible to Western
   Christianity than the orthodox Greek church, and offer to the Roman and
   Protestant churches an interesting field of missions, especially among
   the Nestorians and the Armenians.

   The Nestorians differ from the orthodox Greek church in their
   repudiation of the council of Ephesus and of the worship of Mary as
   mother of God, of the use of images (though they retain the sign of the
   cross), of the doctrine of purgatory (though they have prayers for the
   dead), and of transubstantiation (though they hold the real presence of
   Christ in the eucharist), as well as in greater simplicity of worship.
   They are subject to a peculiar hierarchical organization with eight
   orders, from the catholicus or patriarch to the sub-deacon and reader.
   The five lower orders, up to the priests, may marry; in former times
   even the bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs had this privilege. Their
   fasts are numerous and strict. The feast-days begin with sunset, as
   among the Jews. The patriarch eats no flesh; he is chosen always from
   the same family; he is ordained by three metropolitans. Most of the
   ecclesiastical books are written in the Syriac language.

   After Nestorianism was exterminated from the Roman empire, it found an
   asylum in the kingdom of Persia, whither several teachers of the
   theological school of Edessa fled. One of them, Barsumas, became bishop
   of Nisibis (435-489), [1590] founded a new theological seminary there,
   and confirmed the Persian Christians in their aversion to the Cyrillian
   council of Ephesus, and in their adhesion to the Antiochian and
   Nestorian theology. They were favored by the Persian kings, from
   Pherozes, or Firuz, onward (461-488), out of political opposition to
   Constantinople. At the council of Seleucia (498) they renounced all
   connection with the orthodox church of the empire. They called
   themselves, after their liturgical language, Chaldaean or Assyrian
   Christians, while they were called by their opponents Nestorians. They
   had a patriarch, who after the year 496 resided in the double city of
   Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and after 762 in Bagdad (the capital of the
   Saracenic empire), under the name of Yazelich (catholicus), and who, in
   the thirteenth century, had no less than twenty-five metropolitans
   under his supervision.

   The Nestorian church flourished for several centuries, spread from
   Persia, with great missionary zeal, to India, Arabia, and even to China
   and Tartary, and did good service in scholarship and in the founding of
   schools and hospitals. Mohammed is supposed to owe his imperfect
   knowledge of Christianity to a Nestorian monk, Sergius; and from him
   the sect received many privileges, so that it obtained great
   consideration among the Arabians, and exerted an influence upon their
   culture, and thus upon the development of philosophy and science in
   general. [1591] Among the Tartars, in the eleventh century, it
   succeeded in converting to Christianity a king, the priest-king
   Presbyter John (Prester John) of the Kerait, and his successor of the
   same name. [1592] But of this we have only uncertain accounts, and at
   all events Nestorian Christianity has since left but slight traces in
   Tartary and in China.

   Under the Mongol dynasty the Nestorians were cruelly persecuted. The
   terrible Tamerlane, the scourge and the destroyer of Asia, towards the
   end of the fourteenth century almost exterminated them. Yet they have
   maintained themselves on the wild mountains and in the valleys of
   Kurdistan and in Armenia under the Turkish dominion to this day, with a
   separate patriarch, who from 1559 till the seventeenth century resided
   at Mosul, but has since dwelt in an almost inaccessible valley on the
   borders of Turkey and Persia. They are very ignorant and poor, and have
   been much reduced by war, pestilence, and cholera.

   A portion of the Nestorians, especially those in cities, united from
   time to time, under the name of Chaldaeans, with the Roman church, and
   have a patriarch of their own at Bagdad.

   And on the other side, Protestant missionaries from America have made
   vigorous and successful efforts, since 1833, to evangelize and civilize
   the Nestorians by preaching, schools, translations of the Bible, and
   good books. [1593]

   The Thomas-Christians in East India are a branch of the Nestorians,
   named from the apostle Thomas, who is supposed to have preached the
   gospel on the coast of Malabar. They honor the memory of Theodore and
   Nestorius in their Syriac liturgy, and adhere to the Nestorian
   patriarchs. In the sixteenth century they were, with reluctance,
   connected with the Roman church for sixty years (1599-1663) through the
   agency of Jesuit missionaries. But when the Portuguese power in India
   was shaken by the Dutch, they returned to their independent position,
   and since the expulsion of the Portuguese they have enjoyed the free
   exercise of their religion on the coast of Malabar. The number of the
   Thomas-Christians is said still to amount to seventy thousand souls,
   who form a province by themselves under the British empire, governed by
   priests and elders.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1590] Not to be confounded with the contemporary Monophysite abbot
   Barsumas, a saint of the Jacobites.

   [1591] The observations of Alex. von Humboldt, in the 2d vol. of his
   Kosmos (Stuttg. and Tüb. 1847, p. 247 E), on the connection of
   Nestorianism with the culture and physical science of the Arabians, are
   worthy of note: "It was one of the wondrous arrangements in the system
   of things, that the Christian sect of the Nestorians, which has exerted
   a very important influence on the geographical extension of knowledge,
   was of service even to the Arabians before the latter found their way
   to learned and disputatious Alexandria; that Christian Nestorianism, in
   fact, under the protection of the arms of Islam, was able to penetrate
   far into Eastern Asia. The Arabians, in other words, gained their first
   acquaintance with Grecian literature through the Syrians, a kindred
   Semitic race; while the Syrians themselves, scarcely a century and a
   half before, had first received the knowledge of Grecian literature
   through the anathematized Nestorians. Physicians who had been educated
   in the institutions of the Greeks, and at the celebrated medical school
   founded by the Nestorian Christians at Edessa in Mesopotamia, were, so
   early as the times of Mohammed, living, befriended by him and by
   Abu-Bekr, in Mecca. " The school of Edessa, a model of the Benedictine
   schools of Monte Casino and Salerno, awakened the scientific search for
   materia medica in the mineral and vegetable kingdoms. When it was
   dissolved by Christian fanaticism under Zeno the Isaurian, the
   Nestorians scattered towards Persia, where they soon attained political
   importance, and established a new and thronged medical institute at
   Dschondisapur in Khuzistan. They succeeded in spreading their science
   and their faith to China towards the middle of the seventh century
   under the dynasty of Thang, five hundred and seventy-two years after
   Buddhism had penetrated thither from India. "The seed of Western
   culture, scattered in Persia by educated monks, and by the philosophers
   of the last Platonic school of Athens who were persecuted by Justinian,
   took beneficent root among the Arabians during their first Asiatic
   campaign. Feeble as the science of the Nestorian priests may have been,
   it could still, with its peculiar medical and pharmaceutic turn, act
   genially upon a race which had long lived in free converse with nature,
   and had preserved a more fresh sensibility to every sort of study of
   nature, than the people of Greek and Italian cities. What gives the
   Arabian epoch the universal importance which we must here insist upon,
   is in great part connected with the trait of national character just
   indicated. The Arabians, we repeat, are to be regarded as the proper
   founders of the physical sciences, in the sense which we are now
   accustomed to attach to the word."

   [1592] On this fabulous priest-kingdom, which the popes endeavored by
   unsuccessful embassies to unite to the Roman church, and whose light
   was quenched by the tide of the conquests of Zengis Khan, comp.
   Mosheim: Historia Tartarorum Eccles. Helmst. 1741; Neander:
   Kirchengesch. vol. v. p. 84 ff. (9th part of the whole work, 2d. 1841);
   and Ritter: Erdkunde, part ii. vol. i. pp. 256, 283 (2d ed. 1832).

   [1593] Dr. Justin Perkins, Asahel Grant, Rhea, Stoddard, Wright, and
   other missionaries of the American Board of Commisioners for Foreign
   Missions. The centre of their labors is Oormiah, a city of 25,000
   inhabitants, of whom 1,000 are Nestorians. Comp. on this subject
   Newcomb, l.c. 556 ff., especially the letter of Dr. Perkins of 1854, p.
   564 ff., on the present condition of this mission; also Joseph P.
   Thompson: Memoir of the Rev. David Tappan Stoddard, missionary to the
   Nestorians, Boston, 1858; and a pamphlet issued by the American B.C. F.
   M.: Historical Sketch of the Mission to the Nestorians by Justin
   Perkins, and of the Assyrian Mission by Rev. Thomas Laurie, New York,
   1862. The American Board of Foreign Missions look upon the Nestorian
   and Armenian missions as a means and encouraging pledge of the
   conversion of the millions of Mohammedans among whom Providence has
   placed and preserved those ancient sects, as it would seem, for such an
   end.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 140. The Eutychian Controversy. The Council of Robbers, a.d. 449.

   Comp. the Works at § 137.

   Sources.

   Acts of the council of Chalcedon, of the local council of
   Constantinople, and of the Robber Synod of Ephesus. The correspondence
   between Leo and Flavian, etc. For these acts, letters, and other
   documents, see Mansi, Conc. tom. v. vi. and vii. (Gelasius?):
   Breviculus historiae Eutychianistarum a. gesta de nomine Acacii
   (extending to 486, in Mansi, vii. 1060 sqq.). Liberatus: Breviarium
   causae Nest. et Eutych. Leontinus Byzant.: Contra Nest. et Eutych. The
   last part of the Synodicon adv. tragödiam Irenaei (in Mansi, v. 731
   sqq.). Evagrius: H. E. i. 9 sqq. Theodoret: Eranistes(the Beggar) or
   Polumorphos(the Multiformed),--a refutation of the Egyptian Eutychian
   system of doctrines (which begged together so much from various old
   heresies, as to form a now one), in three dialogues, written in 447
   (Opera, ed. Schulze, vol. iv.).

   Literature.

   Petavius: De incarnatione Verbi, lib. i. c. 14-18, and the succeeding
   books, particularly iii., iv., and v. (Theolog. dogmatum, tom. iv. p.
   65 sqq. ed. Par. 1650). Tillemont: Mémoires, tom. xv. pp. 479-719. C.
   A. Salig: De Eutychianismo ante Eutychen. Wolfenb. 1723. Walch:
   Ketzerhist. vol. vi. 3-640. Schröckh: vol. xviii. 433-492. Neander:
   Kirchengesch. iv. pp. 942-992. Baur: Gesch. der Lehre von d.
   Dreieinigkeit, etc. i. 800-825. Dorner: Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Pers.
   Chr. ii. 99-149. Hefele (R.C.): Conciliengesch. ii. pp. 295-545. W.
   Cunningham: Historical Theology, i. pp. 311-'15. Comp. also the
   Monographs of Arendt (1835) and Perthel (1848) on Leo I.

   The result of the third universal council was rather negative than
   positive. The council condemned the Nestorian error, without fixing the
   true doctrine. The subsequent union of the Alexandrians and the
   Antiochians was only a superficial peace, to which each party had
   sacrificed somewhat of its convictions. Compromises are generally of
   short duration; principles and systems must develope themselves to
   their utmost consequences; heresies must ripen, and must be opened to
   the core. As the Antiochian theology begot Nestorianism, which
   stretched the distinction of the human and divine natures in Christ to
   double personality; so the Alexandrian theology begot the opposite
   error of Eutychianism or Monophysitism, which urged the personal unity
   of Christ at the expense of the distinction of natures, and made the
   divine Logos absorb the human nature. The latter error is as dangerous
   as the former. For if Christ is not true man, he cannot be our example,
   and his passion and death dissolve at last into mere figurative
   representations or docetistic show.

   A large portion of the party of Cyril was dissatisfied with the union
   creed, and he was obliged to purge himself of inconsistency. He
   referred the duality of natures spoken of in the symbol to the abstract
   distinction of deity and humanity, while the two are so made one in the
   one Christ, that after the union all separation ceases, and only one
   nature is to be recognized in the incarnate Son. The Logos, as the
   proper subject of the one nature, has indeed all human, or rather
   divine-human, attributes, but without a human nature. Cyril's theory of
   the incarnation approaches Patripassianism, but differs from It in
   making the Son a distinct hypostasis from the Father. It mixes the
   divine and human; but It mixes them only in Christ, and so is
   Christo-theistic, but not pantheistic. [1594]

   On the other side, the Orientals or Antiochians, under the lead of
   John, Ibas, and especially Theodoret, interpreted the union symbol in
   their sense of a distinction of the two natures continuing in the one
   Christ even after the incarnation, and actually obtained the victory
   for this moderate Nestorianism, by the help of the bishop of Rome, at
   the council of Chalcedon.

   The new controversy was opened by the party of monophysite sentiment.

   Cyril died in 444. His arch-deacon, Dioscurus (Dioskoros), who had
   accompanied him to the council at Ephesus, succeeded him in the
   patriarchal chair of Alexandria (444-451), and surpassed him in all his
   had qualities, while he fell far behind him in intellect and in
   theological capacity. [1595] He was a man of unbounded ambition and
   stormy passion, and shrank from no measures to accomplish his designs
   and to advance the Alexandrian see to the supremacy of the entire East;
   in which he soon succeeded at the Council of Robbers. He put himself at
   the head of the monophysite party, and everywhere stirred the fire of a
   war against the Antiochian Christology.

   The theological representative, but by no means the author, of the
   monophysite heresy which bears his name, was Eutyches, [1596] an aged
   and respected, but not otherwise important presbyter and archimandrite
   (head of a cloister of three hundred monks) in Constantinople, who had
   lived many years in monastic seclusion, and had only once appeared in
   public, to raise his voice, in that procession, for the Cyrillian
   council of Ephesus and against Nestorius. His relation to the
   Alexandrian Christology is like that of Nestorius to the Antiochian;
   that is, he drew it to a head, brought it to popular expression, and
   adhered obstinately to it; but he is considerably inferior to Nestorius
   in talent and learning. His connection with this controversy is in a
   great measure accidental.

   Eutyches, like Cyril, laid chief stress on the divine in Christ, and
   denied that two natures could be spoken of after the incarnation. In
   our Lord, after his birth, he worshipped only one nature, the nature of
   God become flesh and man. [1597] The impersonal human nature is
   assimilated and, as It were, deified by the personal Logos, so that his
   body is by no means of the same substance (homoousion) with ours, but a
   divine body. [1598] All human attributes are transferred to the one
   subject, the humanized Logos. Hence it may and must be said: God is
   born, God suffered, God was crucified and died. He asserted, therefore,
   on the one hand, the capability of suffering and death in the
   Logos-personality, and on the other hand, the deification of the human
   in Christ.

   Theodoret, in three dialogues composed in 447, attacked this Egyptian
   Eutychian type of doctrine as a beggar's basket of Docetistic, Gnostic,
   Apollinarian, and other heresies, [1599] and advocated the qualified
   Antiochian Christology, i.e., the doctrine of the unfused union of two
   natures in one person. Dioscurus accused him to the patriarch Domnus in
   Antioch of dividing the one Lord Christ into two Sons of God; and
   Theodoret replied to this with moderation. Dioscurus, on his part,
   endeavored to stir up the court in Constantinople against the whole
   church of Eastern Asia. Domnus and Theodoret likewise betook themselves
   to the capital, to justify their doctrine. The controversy now broke
   forth with greater violence, and concentrated on the person of Eutyches
   in Constantinople.

   At a local synod of the patriarch Flavian at Constantinople in 448
   [1600] Eutyches was charged with his error by Eusebius, bishop of
   Dorylaeum in Phrygia, and upon his wilful refusal, after repeated
   challenges, to admit the dyophysitism after the incarnation, and the
   consubstantiality of Christ's body with our own, he was deposed and put
   under the ban of the church. On his way home, he was publicly insulted
   by the populace. The council confessed its faith that "Christ, after
   the incarnation, consisted of two natures [1601] in one hypostasis and
   in one person, one Christ, one Son, one Lord."

   Both parties endeavored to gain the public opinion, and addressed
   themselves to distant bishops, especially to Leo I. of Rome. Leo, in
   449, confirmed the decision of the council in several epistles,
   especially in a letter to Flavian, which forms an epoch in the history,
   of Christology, and in which he gave a masterly, profound, and clear
   analysis of the orthodox doctrine of two natures in one person. [1602]
   But Eutyches had powerful friends among the monks and at the court, and
   a special patron in Dioscurus of Alexandria, who induced the emperor
   Theodosius II. to convoke a general council.

   This synod met at Ephesus, in August, 449, and consisted of one hundred
   and thirty-five bishops. It occupies a notorious place in the chronique
   scandaleuse of church history. Dioscurus presided, with brutal
   violence, protected by monks and an armed soldiery; while Flavian and
   his friends hardly dared open their lips, and Theodoret was entirely
   excluded. When an explanation from Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who had been
   the accuser of Eutyches at the council of Constantinople, was
   presented, many voices exclaimed: "Let Eusebius be burnt; let him be
   burnt alive. As he has cut Christ in two, so let him be cut in two."
   [1603] The council affirmed the orthodoxy and sanctity of Eutyches, who
   defended himself in person; adopted the twelve anathematisms of Cyril;
   condemned dyophysitism as a heresy, and deposed and excommunicated its
   advocates, including Theodoret, Flavian, and Leo. The three Roman
   delegates (the bishops Julius and Renatus, and the deacon Hilarus)
   dared not even read before the council the epistle addressed to it by
   Leo, [1604] and departed secretly, that they might not be compelled to
   subscribe its decisions. [1605] Flavian was so grossly maltreated by
   furious monks that he died of his wounds a few days later, in
   banishment, having first appealed to a new council. In his stead the
   deacon Anatolius, a friend and agent of Dioscurus, was chosen patriarch
   of Constantinople. He, however, afterwards went over to the orthodox
   party, and effaced the infamy of his elevation by his exquisite Greek
   hymns.

   The conduct of these unpriestly priests was throughout so arbitrary and
   tyrannical, that the second council of Ephesus has ever since been
   branded with the name of the "Council of Robbers." [1606] "Nothing,"
   Neander justly observes, [1607] "could be more contradictory to the
   spirit of the gospel than the fanatical zeal of the dominant party in
   this council for dogmatical formulas, in which they fancied they had
   Christ, who is spirit and life, although in temper and act they denied
   Him." Dioscurus, for example, dismissed a charge of unchastity and
   other vices against a bishop, with the remark: "If you have an
   accusation against his orthodoxy, we will receive it; but we have not
   come together to pass judgment concerning unchastity." [1608] Thus
   fanatical zeal for doctrinal formulas outweighed all interests of
   morality, as if, as Theodoret remarks, Christ had merely prescribed a
   system of doctrine, and had not given also rules of life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1594] Cyril's true view is most clearly expressed in the following
   propositions (comp. Mansi, v. 320, and Niedner, p. 364):
   Theensarkosiswasphusike henosisor becoming man, on the part of God, so
   that there is onlymia sesarkomene phusis tou logou. Ho Oeos logos,
   henotheis sarki kath hupostasin, egen'eto anthropos;, sunephthe
   anthropo. Mia ede noeitai phusis meta ten henosin, he autou tou logou
   sesarkomene. He tou kuriou sarx estin idia tou Theou logou, ouch
   heterou tinos par auton. Thehenosis ton phuseonis not, indeed, exactly
   a sunchusis ton phuseon, but at all events excludes all diairesis, and
   demands an absolute co-existence and interpenetration of the logosand
   thesarx. The consequence of this incarnation is the existence of a new
   entity, a divine-human subject, which is in nothing only God or only
   man, but in everything is both in one, and whose attributes
   (proprietates, idiomata) are not, some divine and others human, but all
   divine-human.

   [1595]  Towards the memory of Cyril he behaved very recklessly. He
   confiscated his considerable estate (Cyril was of wealthy family),
   accused him of squandering the church funds in his war against
   Nestorius, and unseated several of his relatives. He was himself
   charged, at the council of Chalcedon, with embezzlement of the moneys
   of the church and of the poor.

   [1596]  That is, the Fortunate. His opponents said he should rather
   have been named Atyches, the Unfortunate. He must not be confounded
   with the deacon Eutyches, who attended Cyril to the council of Ephesus.
   Leo the Great in his renowned letter to Flavian, calls him "very
   ignorant and unskilled," multum imprudens et nimis imperious, and
   justly attributes his error rather to imperitia than to versutia. So
   also Petavius and Hefele (ii. p. 800).

   [1597]  Mian phusin proskunein, kai tauten Theou sarkothentos kai
   enanthropesantos, or as he declared before the synod at Constantinople:
   Homologo ek duo phuseon gegennesthai ton kurionhemon pro tes heneseos ;
   meta de ten henosin mian phusin homologo.Mansi, tom. vi. fol. 744. In
   behalf of his view he appealed to the Scriptures, to Athanasius and
   Cyril, and to the council of Ephesus in 431.

   [1598]  The other side imputed to Eutychianism the doctrine of a
   heavenly body, or of an apparent body, or of the transformation of the
   Logos into flesh. So Theodoret, Fab. haer. iv. 13. Eutyches said,
   Christ had a soma anthropou, but not a soma anthropinon, and he denied
   the consubstantiality of his sarxwith ours. Yet he expressly guarded
   himself against Docetism, and against all speculation: Phusiologein
   emauto ouk epitrepo. He was really neither a philosopher nor a
   theologian, but only insisted on some theological opinions and points
   of doctrine with great tenacity and obstinacy.

   [1599]  Hence the title of the dialogues: Eranistes, Beggar, and
   Polumorphos, the Multiform. Under this name the Eutychian speaker is
   introduced. Theodoret also wrote an apologia huper Diodorou kai
   Theodorouwhich is lost.

   [1600]  Sunodos edemousa. Its acts are incorporated in the acts of the
   council of Chalcedon, in Mansi, vi. 649 sqq.

   [1601] 609  Ek duo phuseon, or, as others more accurately said, en duo
   phusesi,--an unessential difference, which reappears in the Creed of
   the council of Chalcedon. Comp. Mansi, tom. vi. fol. 685, and Neander,
   iv. p. 988. The first form may be taken also in a monophysite sense.

   [1602] This Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum (Ep. 28 in Ballerini, 24 in
   Quesnel), which Leo transmitted, with letters to the emperor and the
   emperor's sister, Pulcheria, and the Robber Synod, by his legates, was
   afterwards formally approved at the council of Chalcedon in 451, and
   invested with almost symbolical authority. It may be found in the Opera
   Leonis, ed. Baller. tom. i. pp. 801-838; in Mansi, tom. v. fol. 1359;
   and in Hefele (Latin and German), ii. 335-346. Comp. on It also Walch,
   vi. p. 182 ff., and Baur, i. 809 ff.

   [1603]  Conc. Chalced. Actio i. in Harduin, tom. ii. fol. 161.

   [1604]  This, moreover, made reference to the famous Epistola
   Dogmatica, addressed to Flavian, which was also intended to be read
   before the council. Comp. Hefele, ii. 352.

   [1605]  Leo at least asserts this in reference to the deacon Hilarus.
   The two other delegates appear to have returned home before the council
   broke up. Renatus does not appear at all in the Acta, but Theodoret
   praises him for his courage at the Synod of Robbers. With the three
   delegates Leo sent also a notary, Dulcitius.

   [1606]  Sunodos lestrike, latrocinium Ephesinum; first so called by
   pope Leo in a letter to Pulcheria, dated July 20th, 451 (Ep. 95, ed.
   Ballerini, alias Ep. 75). The official Acta of the Robber Synod were
   read before the council of Chalcedon, and included in its records.
   These of themselves show dark enough. But with them must be compared
   the testimony of the defeated party, which was also rendered at the
   council of Chalcedon; the contemporaneous correspondence of Leo; and
   the accounts of the old historians. Comp. the details in Tillemont,
   Walch, Schröckh, Neander, and Hefele.

   [1607]  Kirchengesch. iv. p. 969 (2d Germ. ed. 1847).

   [1608]  At the third session of the council of Chalcedon, Dioscurus
   himself was accused of gross intemperance and other evil habits. Comp.
   Hefele, ii. p. 429.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 141. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451.

   Comp. the Acta Concilii, together with the previous and subsequent
   epistolary correspondence, in Mansi (tom. vii.), Harduin (tom. ii.),
   and Fuchs, and the sketches of Evagrius: H. E. l. ii. c. 4; among later
   historians: Walch; Schröckh; Neander; Hefele, l.c. The latter, ii. 392,
   gives the literature in detail.

   Thus the party of Dioscurus, by means of the court of the weak
   Theodosius II., succeeded in subjugating the Eastern church, which
   now-looked to the Western for help.

   Leo, who occupied the papal chair from 440 to 461, with an ability, a
   boldness, and an unction displayed by none of his predecessors, and by
   few of his successors, and who, moreover, on this occasion represented
   the whole Occidental church, protested in various letters against the
   Robber Synod, which had presumed to depose him; and he wisely improved
   the perplexed state of affairs to enhance the authority of the papal
   see. He wrote and acted with imposing dignity, energy, circumspection,
   and skill, and with a perfect mastery of the question in
   controversy;--manifestly the greatest mind and character of his age,
   and by far the most distinguished among the popes of the ancient
   Church. He urged the calling of a new council in free and orthodox
   Italy, but afterwards advised a postponement, ostensibly on account of
   the disquiet caused in the West by Attila's ravages, but probably in
   the hope of reaching a satisfactory result, even without a council, by
   inducing the bishops to subscribe his Epistola Dogmatica. [1609]

   At the same time a political change occurred, which, as was often the
   case in the East, brought with it a doctrinal revolution. Theodosius
   died, in July, 450, in consequence of a fall from his horse; he left no
   male heirs, and the distinguished general and senator Marcian became
   his successor, by marriage with his sister Pulcheria, [1610] who
   favored Pope Leo and the dyophysite doctrine. The remains of Flavian
   were honorably interred, and several of the deposed bishops were
   reinstated.

   To restore the peace of the empire, the new monarch, in May, 451, in
   his own name and that of his Western colleague, convoked a general
   council; not, however, to meet in Italy, but at Nicaea, partly that he
   might the better control it partly that he might add to its authority
   by the memories of the first ecumenical council. The edict was
   addressed to the metropolitans, and reads as follows:

   "That which concerns the true faith and the orthodox religion must be
   preferred to all other things. For the favor of God to us insures also
   the prosperity of our empire. Inasmuch, now, as doubts have arisen
   concerning the true faith, as appears from the letters of Leo, the most
   holy archbishop of Rome, we have determined that a holy council be
   convened at Nicaea in Bithynia, in order that by the consent of all the
   truth may be tested, and the true faith dispassionately and more
   explicitly declared, that in time to come no doubt nor division may
   have place concerning it. Therefore let your holiness, with a
   convenient number of wise and orthodox bishops from among your
   suffragans, repair to Nicaea, on the first of September ensuing. We
   ourselves also, unless hindered by wars will attend in person the
   venerable synod." [1611]

   Leo, though dissatisfied with the time and place of the council,
   yielded, sent the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the priest
   Boniface, as legates, who, in conjunction with the legates already in
   Constantinople, were to represent him at the synod, over which
   Paschasinus was to preside in his name. [1612]

   The bishops assembled at Nicaea, in September, 451, but, on account of
   their turbulent conduct, were soon summoned to Chalcedon, opposite
   Constantinople, that the imperial court and senate might attend in
   person, and repress, as far as possible, the violent outbreaks of the
   religious fanaticism of the two parties. Here, in the church of St.
   Euphemia, on a hill commanding a magnificent prospect, and only two
   stadia or twelve hundred paces from the Bosphorus, the fourth
   ecumenical council was opened on the 8th of October, and sat till the
   lst of November. In number of bishops it far exceeded all other
   councils of the ancient Church, [1613] and in doctrinal importance is
   second only to the council of Nicaea. But all the five or six hundred
   bishops, except the papal delegates and two Africans, were Greeks and
   Orientals. The papal delegates had, therefore, to represent the whole
   of Latin Christendom. The imperial commissioners, [1614] who conducted
   the external course of the proceedings, in the name of the emperor,
   with the senators present, sat in the middle of the church, before the
   screen of the sanctuary. On the left sat the Roman delegates, who, for
   the first time at an ecumenical council, conducted the internal
   proceedings, as spiritual presidents; next them sat Anatolius, of
   Constantinople, Maximus, of Antioch, and most of the bishops of the
   East;--all opponents of Eutychianism. On the right sat Dioscurus, of
   Alexandria (who, however, soon had to give up his place and sit in the
   middle), Juvenal, of Jerusalem, and the other bishops of Egypt,
   Illyricum, and Palestine;--the Eutychians.

   The proceedings were, from the outset, very tumultuous, and the
   theological fanaticism of the two parties broke out at times in full
   blaze, till the laymen present were compelled to remind the bishops of
   their clerical dignity. [1615] When Theodoret, of Cyrus, was
   introduced, the Orientals greeted him with enthusiasm, while the
   Egyptians cried: "Cast out the Jew, the enemy of God, the blasphemer of
   Christ!" The others retorted, with equal passion: "Cast out the
   murderer Dioscurus! Who is there that knows not his crimes?" The
   feeling against Nestorius was so strong, that Theodoret could only
   quiet the council by resolving (in the eighth session) to utter the
   anathema against his old friend, and against all who did not call Mary
   "mother of God," and who divided the one Christ into two sons. But the
   abhorrence of Eutyches and the Council of Robbers was still stronger,
   and was favored by the court. Under these influences most of the
   Egyptians soon went over to the left, and confessed their error, some
   excusing themselves by the violent measures brought to bear upon them
   at the Robber Synod. The records of that Synod, and of the previous one
   at Constantinople (in 448), with other official documents, were read by
   the secretaries, but were continually interrupted by incidental
   debates, acclamations, and imprecations, in utter opposition to all our
   modern conceptions of parliamentary decorum, though experience is
   continually presenting us with fresh examples of the uncontrollable
   vehemence of human passions in excited assemblies.

   So early as the close of the first session the decisions of the Robber
   Synod had been annulled, the martyr Flavian declared orthodox, and
   Dioscurus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and other chiefs of
   Eutychianism, deposed. The Orientals exclaimed: "Many years to the
   Senate! Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal God, have mercy upon us.
   Many years to the emperors! The impious must always be overthrown!
   Dioscurus, the murderer [of Flavian], Christ has deposed! This is a
   righteous judgment, a righteous senate, a righteous council!"

   Dioscurus was in a subsequent session three times cited in vain to
   defend himself against various charges of avarice, injustice, adultery,
   and other vices, and divested of all spiritual functions; while the
   five other deposed bishops acknowledged their error, and were
   readmitted into the council.

   At the second session, on the 10th of October, Dioscurus having already
   departed, the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan symbol, two letters of Cyril
   (but not his anathemas), and the famous Epistola Dogmatica of Leo to
   Flavian, were read before the council amid loud applause--the bishops
   exclaiming: "That is the faith of the fathers! That is the faith of the
   apostles! So we all believe! So the orthodox believe Anathema to him
   who believes otherwise! Through Leo, Peter has thus spoken. Even so did
   Cyril teach! That is the true faith." [1616]

   At the fifth and most important session, on the 22d of October, the
   positive confession of faith was adopted, which embraces the
   Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan symbol, and then, passing on to the point in
   controversy, expresses itself as follows, almost in the words of Leo's
   classical epistle: [1617]

   "Following the holy fathers, we unanimously teach one and the same Son,
   our Lord Jesus Christ, complete as to his Godhead, and complete as to
   his manhood; truly God, and truly man, of a reasonable soul and human
   flesh subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as to his Godhead, and
   consubstantial also with us as to his manhood; [1618] like unto us in
   all things, yet without sin; [1619] as to his Godhead begotten of the
   Father before all worlds, but as to his manhood, in these last days
   born, for us men and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, the mother
   of God; [1620] one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known
   in (of) two natures, [1621] without confusion, without conversion,
   without severance, and without division; [1622] the distinction of the
   natures being in no wise abolished by their union, but the peculiarity
   of each nature being maintained, and both concurring in one person and
   hypostasis. [1623] We confess not a Son divided and sundered into two
   persons, but one and the same Son, and Only-begotten, and God-Logos,
   our Lord Jesus Christ, even as the prophets had before proclaimed
   concerning him, and he himself hath taught us, and the symbol of the
   fathers hath handed down to us.

   "Since now we have drawn up this decision with the most comprehensive
   exactness and circumspection, the holy and ecumenical synod [1624] hath
   ordained, that no one shall presume to propose, orally, or in writing,
   another faith, or to entertain or teach it to others; and that those
   who shall dare to give another symbol or to teach another faith to
   converts from heathenism or Judaism, or any heresy, shall, if they be
   bishops or clergymen, be deposed from their bishopric and spiritual
   function, or if they be monks or laymen, shall be excommunicated."

   After the public reading of this confession, all the bishops exclaimed:
   "This is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the apostles;
   to this we all agree; thus we all think.

   The symbol was solemnly ratified at the sixth session (Oct. 25th), in
   the presence of the emperor and the empress. The emperor thanked Christ
   for the restoration of the unity of faith, and threatened all with
   heavy punishment, who should thereafter stir up new controversies;
   whereupon the synod exclaimed: "Thou art both priest and king, victor
   in war, and teacher of the faith."

   At its subsequent sessions the synod was occupied with the appeal of
   Ibas, bishop of Edessa, who had been deposed by the Robber Synod, and
   was now restored; with other cases of discipline; with some personal
   matters; and with the enactment of twenty-eight canons, which do not
   concern us here. [1625]

   The emperor, by several edicts, gave the force of law to the decisions
   of the council, and commanded that all Eutychians should be banished
   from the empire, and their writings burned. [1626] Pope Leo confirmed
   the doctrinal confession of the council, but protested against the
   twenty-eighth canon, which placed the patriarch of Constantinople on an
   equality with him. Notwithstanding these ratifications and rejoicings,
   the peace of the Church was only apparent, and the long Monophysite
   troubles were at hand. [1627]

   But before we proceed to these, we must enter into a more careful
   exposition of the Chalcedonian Christology, which has become the
   orthodox doctrine of Christendom.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1609]  Respecting this apparent inconsistency of Leo, see Hefele, who
   considers it at length, ii. 387 ff.

   [1610]  Who, however, stipulated as a condition of the marriage, that
   she still be allowed to keep her vow of perpetual virginity. Marcian
   was a widower, sixty years of age, and had the reputation of great
   ability and piety. Some authors place him, as emperor, by the side of
   Constantineand Theodosius, or even above them. Comp. Leo's Letters,
   Baronius (Annales), Tillemont (Emper. iii. 284), and Gibbon (at the end
   of ch. xxxiv.). The last-named author says of Marcian: "The zeal which
   he displayed for the orthodox creed, as it was established by the
   council of Chalcedon, would alone have inspired the grateful eloquence
   of the Catholics. But the behavior of Marcian, in a private life, and
   afterwards on the throne, may support a more rational belief, that he
   was qualified to restore and invigorate an empire, which had been
   almost dissolved by the successive weakness of two hereditary monarchs
   .... His own example gave weight to the laws which he promulgated for
   the reformation of manners."

   [1611]  This promise was in fact fulfilled, although only at one
   session, the sixth.

   [1612]  Evagrius, H. E. ii. c. 4: "The bishops Paschasinus and
   Lucentius, and the presbyter Boniface, were the representatives of Leo,
   archpriest of the elder Rome." Besides them bishop Julianof Cos, Leo's
   legate at Constantinople, also frequently appears in the council, but
   he had his seat among the bishops, not the papal delegates.

   [1613]  There are only imperfect registers of the subscriptions yet
   extant, and the statements respecting the number of members vary from
   520 to 630.

   [1614]  Archontes, judices. There were six of them.

   [1615]  Such tumultuous outcries (ekboeseis demotikai), said the
   commissioners and senators, ill-beseemed bishops, and were of no
   advantage to either side.

   [1616]  Mansi, tom. vi. 971: haute he pistis ton pateron, haute he
   pistis ton apostolon, pan'tes houto pisteuomen, hoi orthodoxoi houto
   pisteuousin, anathema to me houto pisteuonti, k.t.l.

   [1617]  Complete in Mansi, tom. vii. f. 111-118, The Creed is also
   given by Evagrius, ii. 4.

   [1618]  Homoousios is used in both clauses, though with a shade of
   difference: Christ's homoousia with the Father implies numerical unity
   or identity of substance (God being one in essence, monoousios);
   Christ's homoousia with men means only generic unity or equality of
   nature. Compare the remarks in § 130, p. 672 f.

   [1619]  Hu 'Ena kai auton huion ton kurion hemon I. Christon ton auton
   en theoteti kai teleion ton auton en anthropoteti, theon alethos kai
   athropon alethos ton auton, ek psuches logikes[against Apollinaris] kai
   somatos, homoiousion to Patri kata ten theoteta, kai omoousion ton
   auton emin kataten anthropoteta, kata panta homoion emin choris
   hamartias.

   [1620]  Tes theotokou, against Nestorius. This, however, is immediately
   after modified by the phrase kata ten anthropoteta(in distinction from
   kata ten theoteta). Mary was the mother not merely of the human nature
   of Jesus, but of the theanthropic person Jesus Christ; not, however,
   according to his eternal Godhead, but according to his humanity. In
   like manner, the subject of the passion was the theanthropic person,
   yet not according to his divine impassible nature, but according to his
   human nature.

   [1621] En duo phusesin and the Latin translation, in duabus naturis, is
   directed against Eutyches. The present Greek text reads, it is true, ek
   duo phuseon, which, however, signifies, and according to the
   connection, can only signify, essentially the same thing, but is also
   capable of being understood in an Eutychian and Monophysite sense,
   namely, that Christ has arisen from the confluence of two natures, and
   since the incarnation has only one nature. Understood in this sense,
   Dioscurus at the council was very willing to accept the formula ek duo
   phuseon. But for this very reason the Orientals, and also the Roman
   legates, protested with one voice against ekand insisted upon another
   formula with enwhich was adopted. Baur (l.c. i. p. 820 f.) and Dorner
   (ii. p. 129) assert that ek is the accurate and original expression,
   and is a concession to Monophysitism, that It also agrees better (?)
   with the verb gnorizomen(to recognize by certain tokens) but that it
   was from the very beginning changed by the Occidentals into en. But we
   prefer the view of Gieseler, Neander (iv. 988), Hefele (ii. 451 f), and
   Beck (Dogmengeschichte, p. 251), that en duo phusesin was the original
   reading of the symbol, and that It was afterwards altered in the
   interest of Monophysitism. This is proved by the whole course of the
   proceedings at the fifth session of the council of Chalcedon, where the
   expression ek duo phuseon was protested against, and is proved by the
   testimony of the abbot Euthymius, a cotemporary, and by that of
   Severus, Evagrius, and Leontius of Byzantium. Severus, the Monophysite
   patriarch of Antioch since 513, charges the fathers of Chalcedon with
   the inexcusable crime of having taught: en duo phusesin adiairetois
   gnorizesthai ton Theon(see Mansi, vii. 839). Evagrius (H. E. ii. 5)
   maintains that both formulas amount to essentially the same thing, and
   reciprocally condition each other. Dorner also affirms the same. His
   words are: " The Latin formula has 'to acknowledge Christ as Son in two
   natures,' the Greek has 'to recognize Christ as Son from two natures,'
   which is plainly the same thought. The Latin formula is only a free,
   but essentially faithful translation, only that its coloring expresses
   somewhat more definitely still Christ's subsisting in two natures, and
   is therefore more literally conformable to the Roman type of doctrine"
   (l.c. ii. p. 129 f.).

   [1622]  Asunchutos, atreptos[against Eutyches], adiaretos,
   achoristos[against Nestorius]--gnorizomenon.

   [1623]  Eis hen prosopon kai mian hupostasin.

   [1624]  He hagia kai oikoumenike sunodos.

   [1625]  Respecting the famous 28th canon of the council, which gives
   the bishop of Constantinople equal rights with the bishop of Rome, and
   places him next after him in rank, Comp. above § 56 (p. 279 ff.).

   [1626]  Eutyches, who, in the very beginning of the controversy, said
   of himself, that he had lived seventy years a monk died probably soon
   after the meeting of the council. Dioscurus was banished to Gangra, in
   Paphlagonia, and lived tin 454. Comp. Schröckh, Th. xviii. p. 492.

   [1627]  Dorner judges very unfavorably of the council of Chalcedon (ii.
   p. 83), and denies it all vocation, inward or outward, to render a
   positive decision of the great question in controversy; forgetting that
   the third ecumenical council, which condemned Nestorius, was, in
   Christian spirit and moral dignity, decidedly inferior to the fourth.
   "Notwithstanding its 630 bishops," says he (ii. 130), "it is very far
   from being able to claim canonical authority. The fathers of this
   council exhibIt neither the harmony of an assembly animated by the Holy
   Ghost, nor that certainty of judgment, past wavering and inconsistency,
   nor that manly courage in maintaining a well-gained conviction, which
   is possible where, out of antitheses long striving for unity, a bright
   and clear persuasion, shared by the general body, has arisen." Kahnis
   (Der Kirchenglaube, Bd. ii. 1864, p. 89) judges as follows: "The
   significance of the Chalcedonian symbol does not lie in the ecumenical
   character of this council, for ecumenical is an exceedingly elastic
   idea; nor in its results being a development of those of the council of
   Ephesus (431), for, while at Ephesus the doctrine of the unity, here
   that of the distinction, in Christ's person, was the victorious side;
   nor in the spirit with which all the proceedings were conducted, for
   passions, intrigues, political views, tumultuous disorder, &c.,
   prevailed in it in abundant measure: but it lies rather in the unity of
   acknowledgment which it has received in the Church, even to our day,
   and in the inner unity of its definitions."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 142. The Orthodox Christology--Analysis and Criticism.

   The first council of Nicaea had established the eternal preexistent
   Godhead of Christ. The symbol of the fourth ecumenical council relates
   to the incarnate Logos, as he walked upon earth and sits on the right
   hand of the Father, and it is directed against errors which agree with
   the Nicene Creed as opposed to Arianism, but put the Godhead of Christ
   in a false relation to his humanity. It substantially completes the
   orthodox Christology of the ancient Church; for the definitions added
   by the Monophysite and Monothelite controversies are few and
   comparatively unessential.

   The same doctrine, in its main features, and almost in its very words
   (though with less definite reference to Nestorianism and Eutychianism),
   was adopted in the second part of the pseudo-Athanasian Creed, [1628]
   and in the sixteenth century passed into all the confessions of the
   Protestant churches. [1629] Like the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, it
   is the common inheritance of Greek, Latin, and Evangelical Christendom;
   except that Protestantism, here as elsewhere, reserves the right of
   searching, to ever new depths, the inexhaustible stores of this mystery
   in the living Christ of the Gospels and the apostolic writings. [1630]

   The person of Jesus Christ in the fulness of its theanthropic life
   cannot be exhaustively set forth by any formulas of human logic. Even
   the imperfect, finite personality of man has a mysterious background,
   that escapes the speculative comprehension; how much more then the
   perfect personality of Christ, in which the tremendous antitheses of
   Creator and creature, Infinite and finite, immutable, eternal Being and
   changing, temporal becoming, are harmoniously conjoined! The formulas
   of orthodoxy can neither beget the true faith, nor nourish it; they are
   not the bread and the water of life, but a standard for theological
   investigation and a rule of public teaching. [1631]

   Such considerations suggest the true position and the just value of the
   Creed of Chalcedon, against both exaggeration and disparagement. That
   symbol does not aspire to comprehend the Christological mystery, but
   contents itself with setting forth the facts and establishing the
   boundaries of orthodox doctrine. It does not mean to preclude further
   theological discussion, but to guard against such erroneous conceptions
   as would mutilate either the divine or the human in Christ, or would
   place the two in a false relation. It is a light-house, to point out to
   the ship of Christological speculation the channel between Scylla and
   Charybdis, and to save it from stranding upon the reefs of Nestorian
   dyophysitism or of Eutychian monophysitism. It contents itself with
   settling, in clear outlines, the eternal result of the theanthropic
   process of incarnation, leaving the study of the process itself to
   scientific theology. The dogmatic letter of Leo, it is true, takes a
   step beyond this, towards a theological interpretation of the doctrine;
   but for this very reason it cannot have the same binding and normative
   force as the symbol itself.

   As the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity stands midway between tritheism
   and Sabellianism, so the Chalcedonian formula strikes the true mean
   between Nestorianism and Eutychianism.

   It accepts dyophysitism; and so far it unquestionably favored and
   satisfied the moderate Antiochian party rather than the Egyptian.
   [1632] But at the same time it teaches with equal distinctness, in
   opposition to consistent Nestorianism, the inseparable unity of the
   person of Christ.

   The following are the leading ideas of this symbol:

   1. A true incarnation of the Logos, or of the second person in the
   Godhead. [1633] The motive is the unfathomable love of God; the end,
   the redemption of the fallen race, and its reconciliation with God.
   This incarnation is neither a conversion of God into a man, nor a
   conversion of a man into God; neither a humanizing of the divine, nor a
   deification or apotheosis of the human; nor on the other hand is it a
   mere outward, transitory connection of the two factors; but an actual
   and abiding union of the two in one personal life.

   It is primarily and pre-eminently a condescension and self-humiliation
   of the divine Logos to human nature, and at the same time a consequent
   assumption and exaltation of the human nature to inseparable and
   eternal communion with the divine person. The Logos assumes the body,
   soul, and spirit of man, and enters into all the circumstances and
   infirmities of human life on earth, with the single exception of sin,
   which indeed is not an essential or necessary element of humanity, but
   accidental to it. "The Lord of the universe," as Leo puts the matter in
   his epistle, "took the form of a servant; the impassible God became a
   suffering man; the Immortal One submitted himself to the dominion of
   death; Majesty assumed into itself lowliness; Strength, weakness;
   Eternity, mortality." The same, who is true God, is also true man,
   without either element being altered or annihilated by the other, or
   being degraded to a mere accident.

   This mysterious union came to pass, in an incomprehensible way, through
   the power of the Holy Ghost, in the virgin womb of Mary. But whether
   the miraculous conception was only the beginning, or whether it at the
   same time completed the union, is not decided in the Creed of
   Chalcedon. According to his human nature at least Christ submitted
   himself to the laws of gradual development and moral conflict, without
   which, indeed, he could be no example at all for us.

   2. The precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or
   substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a
   being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting, and
   acting subject. There is no person without nature, but there may be
   nature without person (as in irrational beings). [1634] The Church
   doctrine distinguishes in the Holy Trinity three persons (though not in
   the ordinary human sense of the word) in one divine nature or substance
   which they have in common; in its Christology it teaches, conversely,
   two natures in one person (in the usual sense of person) which pervades
   both. Therefore it cannot be said: The Logos assumed a human person,
   [1635] or united himself with a definite human individual: for then the
   God-Man would consist of two persons; but he took upon himself the
   human nature, which is common to all men; and therefore he redeemed not
   a particular man, but all men, as partakers of the same nature or
   substance. [1636] The personal Logos did not become an individual
   anthropos, but sarx, flesh, which includes the whole of human nature,
   body, soul, and spirit. The personal self-conscious Ego resides in the
   Logos. But into this point we shall enter more fully below.

   3. The result of the incarnation, that infinite act of divine love, is
   the God-Man. Not a (Nestorian) double being, with two persons; nor a
   compound (Apollinarian or Monophysite) middle being a tertium quid,
   neither divine nor human; but one person, who is both divine and human.
   Christ has a rational human soul, and--according to a definition
   afterwards added--a human will, [1637] and is therefore in the full
   sense of the word the Son of man; while yet at the same time he is the
   eternal Son of God in one person, with one undivided
   self-consciousness.

   4. The duality of the natures. This was the element of truth in
   Nestorianism, and on this the council of Chalcedon laid chief stress,
   because this council was principally concerned with the condemnation of
   Eutychianism or monophysitism, as that of Ephesus (431) had been with
   the condemnation of Nestorianism, or abstract dyophysitism. Both views,
   indeed, admitted the distinction of the natures, but Eutychianism
   denied it after the act of the incarnation, and (like Apollinarianism)
   made Christ a middle being, an amalgam, as it were, of the two natures,
   or, more accurately, one nature in which the human element is absorbed
   and deified.

   Against this it is affirmed by the Creed of Chalcedon, that even after
   the incarnation, and to all eternity, the distinction of the natures
   continues, without confusion or conversion, [1638] yet, on the other
   hand, without separation or division, [1639] so that the divine will
   remain ever divine, and the human, ever human, [1640] and yet the two
   have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other, like
   the persons of the Trinity. [1641]

   The continuance of the divine nature unaltered is involved in its
   unchangeableness, and was substantially conceded by all parties. The
   controversy, therefore, had reference only to the human nature.

   And here the Scriptures are plainly not on the Eutychian side. The
   Christ of the Gospels by no means makes the impression of a person in
   whom the human nature had been absorbed, or extinguished, or even
   weakened by the divine; on the contrary, he appears from the nativity
   to the sepulchre as genuinely and truly human in the highest and
   fairest sense of the word. The body which he had of the substance of
   Mary, was born, grew, hungered and thirsted, slept and woke, suffered
   and died, and was buried, like any other human body. His rational soul
   felt joy and sorrow, thought, spoke, and acted after the manner of men.
   The only change which his human nature underwent, was its development
   to full manhood, mental and physical, in common with other men,
   according to the laws of growth, yet normally, without sin or inward
   schism; and its ennoblement and completion by its union with the
   divine.

   5. The unity of the person. [1642] This was the element of truth in
   Eutychianism and the later monophysitism, which, however, they urged at
   the expense of the human factor. There is only one and the self-same
   Christ, one Lord, one Redeemer. There is an unity in the distinction,
   as well as a distinction in the unity. "The same who is true God," says
   Leo, "is also true man, and in this unity there is no deceit; for in it
   the lowliness of man and the majesty of God perfectly pervade one
   another .... Because the two natures make only one person, we read on
   the one hand: 'The Son of man came down from heaven' (John iii. 13),
   while yet the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin; and on the other:
   'The Son of God was crucified and buried' (1 Cor. ii. 8), while yet he
   suffered not in his Godhead as co-eternal and consubstantial with the
   Father, but in the weakness of human nature."

   Here again the Chalcedonian formula has a firm and clear basis in
   Scripture. In the gospel history this personal unity everywhere
   unmistakably appears. The self-consciousness of Christ is not divided.
   It is one and the self-same theanthropic subject that speaks, acts, and
   suffers, that rises from the dead, ascends to heaven, sits at the right
   hand of God, and shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the
   dead.

   The divine and the human are as far from forming a double personality
   in Christ, as the soul and the body in man, or as the regenerate and
   the natural life in the believer. As the human personality consists of
   such a union of the material and the spiritual natures that the spirit
   is the ruling principle and personal centre: so does the person of
   Christ consist in such a union of the human and the divine natures that
   the divine nature is the seat of self-consciousness, and pervades and
   animates the human. [1643]

   I may refer also to the familiar ancient analogy of the fire and the
   iron.

   6. The whole work of Christ is to be referred to his person, and not to
   be attributed to the one or the other nature exclusively. It is the one
   divine-human Christ, who wrought miracles of almighty power,--by virtue
   of the divine nature dwelling in him,--and who suffered and was
   buried,--according to his passible, human nature. The person was the
   subject, the human nature the seat and the sensorium, of the passion.
   It is by this hypostatical union of the divine and the human natures in
   all the stages of the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, that his
   work and his merits acquire an infinite and at the same time a
   genuinely human and exemplary significance for us. Because the God-Man
   suffered, his death is the reconciliation of the world with God; and
   because he suffered as Man, he has left us an example, that we should
   follow his steps. [1644]

   7. The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the
   enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point,
   but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for
   otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the
   incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.
   The impersonality of Christ's human nature, however, is not to be taken
   as absolute, but relative, as the following considerations will show.

   The centre of personal life in the God-Man resides unquestionably in
   the Logos, who was from eternity the second person in the Godhead, and
   could not lose his personality. He united himself, as has been already
   observed, not with a human person, but with human nature. The divine
   nature is therefore the root and basis of the personality of Christ.
   Christ himself, moreover, always speaks and acts in the full
   consciousness of his divine origin and character; as having come from
   the Father, having been sent by him, and, even during his earthly life,
   living in heaven and in unbroken communion with the Father. [1645] And
   the human nature of Christ had no independent personality of its own,
   besides the divine; it had no existence at all before the incarnation,
   but began with this act, and was so incorporated with the preexistent
   Logos-personality as to find in this alone its own full
   self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every
   stage of its development. But the human nature forms a necessary
   element in the divine personality, and in this sense we may say with
   the older Protestant theologians, that Christ is a persona sunthetos,
   which was divine and human at once. [1646]

   Thus interpreted, the church doctrine of the enhypostasia presents no
   very great metaphysical or psychological difficulty. It is true we
   cannot, according to our modern way of thinking, conceive a complete
   human nature without personality. We make personality itself consist in
   intelligence and free will, so that without it the nature sinks to a
   mere abstraction of powers, qualities, and functions. [1647] But the
   human nature of Jesus never was, in fact, alone; it was from the
   beginning inseparably united with another nature, which is personal,
   and which assumed the human into a unity of life with itself. The
   Logos-personality is in this case the light of self-consciousness, and
   the impelling power of will, and pervades as well the human nature as
   the divine. [1648]

   8. Criticism and development. This Chalcedonian Christology has
   latterly been subjected to a rigorous criticism, and has been charged
   now with dualism, now with docetism, according as its distinction of
   two natures or its doctrine of the impersonality of the human nature
   has most struck the eye. [1649]

   But these imputations neutralize each other, like the imputations of
   tritheism and modalism which may be made against the orthodox doctrine
   of the Trinity when either the tripersonality or the consubstantiality
   is taken alone. This, indeed, is the peculiar excellence of the creed
   of Chalcedon, that it exhibits so sure a tact and so wise a
   circumspection in uniting the colossal antitheses in Christ, and seeks
   to do justice alike to the distinction of the natures and to the unity
   of the person. [1650] In Christ all contradictions are reconciled.

   Within these limits there remains indeed ample scope for further
   Christological speculations on the possibility, reality, and mode of
   the incarnation; on its relation to the revelation of God and the
   development of man; on its relation to the immutability of God and the
   trinity of essence and the trinity of revelation:--questions which, in
   recent times especially, have been earnestly and profoundly discussed
   by the Protestant theologians of Germany. [1651]

   The great want, in the present state of the Christological controversy,
   is, on the one hand, a closer discussion of the Pauline idea of the
   kenosis, the self-limitation, self-renunciation of the Logos, and on
   the other hand, a truly human portrait of Jesus in his earthly
   development from childhood to the fall maturity of manhood, without
   prejudice to his deity, but rather showing forth his absolute
   uniqueness and sinless perfection as a proof of his Godhead. Both these
   tasks can and should be so performed, that the enormous labor of deep
   and earnest thought in the ancient church be not condemned as a sheer
   waste of strength, but in substance confirmed, expanded, and perfected.

   And even among believing Protestant scholars, who agree in the main
   views of the theanthropic glory of the person of Christ, opinions still
   diverge. Some restrict the kenosis to the laying aside of the divine
   form of existence, or divine dignity and glory; [1652] others strain it
   in different degrees, even to a partial or entire emptying of the
   divine essence out of himself, so that the inner trinitarian process
   between Father and Son, and the government of the world through the
   Son, were partially or wholly suspended during his earthly life. [1653]
   Some, again, view the incarnation as an instantaneous act, consummated
   in the miraculous conception and nativity; others as a gradual process,
   an ethical unification of the eternal Logos and the man Jesus in
   continuous development, so that the complete God-Man would be not so
   much the beginning as the consummation of the earthly life of Jesus.

   But all these more recent inquiries, earnest, profound, and valuable as
   they are, have not as yet led to any important or generally accepted
   results, and cannot supersede the Chalcedonian Christology. The
   theology of the church will ever return anew to deeper and still deeper
   contemplation and adoration of the theanthropic person of Jesus Christ,
   which is, and ever will be, the sun of history, the miracle of
   miracles, the central mystery of godliness, and the inexhaustible
   fountain of salvation and life for the lost race of man.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1628]  Comp. above § 132.

   [1629]  Comp. my article cited in § 132 upon the Symbolum Quicunque.
   One of the briefest and clearest Protestant definitions of the person
   of Christ in the sense of the Chalcedonian formula, is the one in the
   Westminster (Presbyterian) Shorter Catechism: "Dominus Jesus Christus
   est electorum Dei Redemptor unicus, qui eternus Dei filius cum esset
   factus est homo; adeoque fuit, est eritque theanthropose [in] naturis
   duabus distinctis persona unica in sempiternum or, as it is in English:
   "The only Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being
   the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be,
   God and Man, in two distinct natures, and one person forever." The
   Westminster Confession formulates this doctrine (ch. viii. sec 21) in
   very nearly the words of the Chalcedonian symbol: "The Son of God, the
   second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one
   substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was
   come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and
   common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the
   power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her
   substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures,--the
   Godhead and the manhood,--were inseparably joined together in one
   person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is
   very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God
   and man."

   [1630]  The Lutheran Church has framed the doctrine of a threefold
   communicatio idiomatum, and included It in the Formula Concordiae. The
   controversy between the Lutheran theologians of Giessen and Tübingen,
   in the seventeenth century, concerning the ktesis(the possession), the
   xresis (the use), the krupsis(the secret use), and the kenosis(the
   entire abdication) of the divine attributes by the incarnate Logos, led
   to no definite results, and was swallowed up in the thirty years' war.
   It has been resumed in modified form by modern German divines.

   [1631]  Comp. Cunningham (Historical Theology, vol. i. p. 319): "The
   chief use now to be made of an examination of these controversies [the
   Eutychian and Nestorian] is not so much to guard us against errors [?]
   which may be pressed upon us, and into which we may be tempted to fall,
   but rather to aid us in forming clear and definite conceptions of the
   truths regarding the person of Christ, which all profess to believe; in
   securing precision and accuracy of language in explaining them, and
   especially to assist us in realizing them; in habitually regarding as
   great and actual realities the leading features of the constitution of
   Christ's person, which the word of God unfolds to us."

   [1632]  Accordingly in Leo's Epistola Dogmatica also, which was the
   basis of the Creed, Nestorius is not even mentioned, while Eutyches, on
   the other hand, is refuted at length. But in a later letter of Leo,
   addressed to the emperor, a.d.457 (Ep. 156, ed. Ballerini), he classes
   Nestorius and Eutyches together, as equally dangerous heretics. The
   Creed of Chalcedon is also regarded by Baur, Niedner, and Dorner as
   exhibiting a certain degree of preference for the Nestorian
   dyophysitism.

   [1633]  Enanthropesis Theou, ensarkosis, incarnatio,--in distinction
   from a mere sunapheia, conjunctio, or schetike henosis, of the divine
   and human, by proslepsis(from, proslambano), assumptio, of the human,
   and enoikesisthe divine; and on the other hand, from a phusike
   henosisor krasis, sunchusis ,or sarkosisin the sense of transmutation.
   The diametrical opposite of the enanthropesis Theouis the heathen
   apotheosis anthropou.

   [1634]  Compare the weighty dissertation of Boethius: De duabus naturis
   et una persona Christi, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium (Opera, ed.
   Basil., 1546, pp. 948-957), in which he defines natura (phusisor
   ousia), substantia (hupostasis), and persona (prosopon)."Natura," he
   says, "est cujuslibet substantia specificata proprietas; persona vero
   rationabilis naturae individua subsistentia."

   [1635]  Teleion anthropon eilephe, as Theodore of Mopsuestia and the
   strict Nestorians expressed themselves.

   [1636]  As Augustinesays: Deus Verbum non accepit personam hominis, sed
   naturam, et in eternam personam divinitatis accepit temporalem
   substantiam carnis. And again: "Deus naturam nostram, id est, animam
   rationalem carnemque hominis Christi suscepit." (De corrept. et grat.
   §30, tom. x. f. 766.) Comp. Johannes Damascenus De fide orthod. iii. c.
   6, II. The Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, styled on account of
   his sober equipoise of intellect "the judicious Hooker," sets forth
   this point of the Church doctrine as follows: "He took not angels but
   the seed of Abraham. It pleased not the Word or Wisdom of God to take
   to itself some one person amongst men, for then should that one have
   been advanced which was assumed, and no more, but Wisdom to the end she
   might save many built her house of that Nature which is common unto
   all, she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us. If
   the Son of God had taken to himself a man now made and already
   perfected, it would of necessity follow, that there are in Christ two
   persons, the one assuming, and the other assumed; whereas the Son of
   God did not assume a man's person into his own, but a man's nature to
   his own person; and therefore took semen, the seed of Abraham, the very
   first original and element of our nature, before it was come to have
   any personal human subsistence. The flesh and the conjunction of the
   flesh with God began both at one instant; his making and taking to
   himself our flesh was but one act, so that in Christ there is no
   personal subsistence but one, and that from everlasting. By taking only
   the nature of man he still continueth one person, and changeth but the
   manner of his subsisting, which was before in the glory of the Son of
   God, and is now in the habIt of our flesh." (Ecclesiastical Polity,
   book v. ch. 52, in Keble's edition of Hooker's works, vol. ii. p. 286
   f.) In just the same manner Anastasius Sinaita and John of Damascus
   express themselves. Comp. Dorner, ii. p. 183 ff. Hooker's allusion to
   Heb. ii. 16 (ou gar depou angelon epilambanetai, alla spermatos Habraam
   epilambanetai), it may be remarked, rests upon a false interpretation,
   since epilambanesthaidoes not refer to the incarnation, but signifies:
   to take hold of in order to help or redeem (as in Sirach, iv. 11).
   Comp. boethesai, Heb. ii. 18.

   [1637]  The sixth ecumenical council, held at Constantinople, a.d.680,
   condemned monothelitism, and decided in favor of dyothelitism, or the
   doctrine of two wills (or volitions) in Christ, which are necessary to
   the ethical conflict and victory of his own life and to his office as
   an example for us. This council teaches (Mansi, tom xi. 637): Duo
   phusikas theleseis etoi thelemata en auto kai duo phusikas energeias
   adiairetos, atreptos , ameristos, asunchutos ... keruttomen. These
   wills are not opposite to one another, but the human will is ever in
   harmony with the divine, and in all things obedient to it. "Not my
   will, but thine be done:" therein is found the distinction and the
   unity.

   [1638]  Asunchutosand atreptos .

   [1639]  Adiairetos and achoristos.

   [1640]  "Tenet," says Leo, in his epistle to Flavian, "sine defectu
   proprietatem suam utraque natura, et sicut formam servi Dei formam non
   adimit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit .... Agit utraque cum
   alterius communione quod Proprium est; Verbo scilicet operante quod
   Verbi est, et came exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat
   miraculis, aliud succumbIt injuriis."

   [1641]  Here belongs John of Damascus' doctrine of the perichoresis,
   Permeatio, circummeatio, circulatio, circumincessio, intercommunio, or
   reciprocal indwelling and pervasion, which has relation not merely to
   the Trinity but also to Christology. The verb perichorein, is, so far
   as I know, first applied by Gregory of Nyasa (Contra Apollinarium) to
   the interpenetration and reciprocal pervasion of the two natures in
   Christ. On this rested also the doctrine of the exchange or
   communication of attributes, antidosis , antimetastasis, koinonia
   idiomaton, communicatio idiomatum. The antimetastasis ton onomaton,
   also antimethistasis, transmutatio proprietalum, transmutation of
   attributes, is, strictly speaking, not identical with antidosis, but a
   deduction from it, and the rhetorical expression for it. The doctrine
   of the communicatio idiomatum, however, awaited a full development much
   later, in the Lutheran church, where great subtlety was employed in
   perfecting it. This Lutheran doctrine has never found access into the
   Reformed church, and least of all the ubiquitarian hypothesis invented
   as a prop to consubstantiation; although a certain measure of truth
   lies at the basis of this, if it is apprehended dynamically, and not
   materially.

   [1642]  The henosis kath hupostasin,or henosis hupostatike, unio
   hypostatica or personalis, unitas personae. The unio personalis is the
   status unionis, the result of the unitio or incarnatio.

   [1643]  Comp. the Athanasian Creed: "Sicut anima rationalis et caro
   unus est homo, ita Deus et homo unus est Christus." In the same does
   Augustineexpress himself, and indeed this passage in the Creed, as well
   as several others, appears to be taken from him. Dr. Shedd (History of
   Christian Doctrine, i. p. 402) carries out vividly this analogy of the
   human personality with that of Christ, as follows: "This union of the
   two natures in one self-conscious Ego may be illustrated by reference
   to man's personal constitution. An individual man is one person. But
   this one person consists of two natures,--a material nature and a
   mental nature. The personality, the self-consciousness, is the
   resultant of the union of the two. Neither one of itself makes the
   person." [This is not quite exact. Personality lies in the reasonable
   soul, which can maintain its self-conscious existence without the body,
   even as in Christ His personality resides in the divine nature, as Dr.
   Shedd himself clearly states on p. 406.] "Both body and soul are
   requisite in order to a complete individuality. The two natures do not
   make two individuals. The material nature, taken by itself, is not the
   man; and the mental part, taken by itself, is not the man. But only the
   union of the two is. Yet in this intimate union of two such diverse
   substances as matter and mind, body and soul, there is not the
   slightest alteration of the properties of each substance or nature. The
   body of a man is as truly and purely material as a piece of granite;
   and the immortal mind of a man is as truly and purely spiritual and
   immaterial as the Godhead itself. Neither the material part nor the
   mental part, taken by itself, and in separation, constitutes the
   personality; otherwise every human individual would be two persons in
   juxtaposition. There is therefore a material 'nature,' but no material
   'person,' and there is a mental 'nature,' but no mental 'person.' The
   person is the union of these two natures, and is not to be denominated
   either material or mental, but human. In like manner the person of
   Christ takes its denomination of theanthropic, or divine-human, neither
   from the divine nature alone, nor the hurnan nature alone, but from the
   union of both natures."

   [1644]  Here also the orthodox Protestant theology is quite in
   agreement with the old Catholic. We cite two examples from the two
   opposite wings of English Protestantism. The Episcopalian theologian,
   Richard Hooker, says, with evident reference to the above-quoted
   passage from the letter of Leo: "To Christ we ascribe both working of
   wonders and suffering of pains, we use concerning Him speeches as well
   of humility as of divine glory, but the one we apply unto that nature
   which He took of the Virgin Mary, the other to that which was in the
   beginning" (Eccles. Polity, book v. ch. 52, vol. ii. p, 291, Keble's
   edition). The great Puritan theologian of the seventeenth century, John
   Owen, says, yet more explicitly: "In all that Christ did as the King,
   Priest, and Prophet of the church,--in all that He did and suffered, in
   all that He continueth to do for us, in or by virtue of whether nature
   soever it be done or wrought,--it is not to be considered as the act
   and work of this or that nature in Him alone, but it is the act and
   work of the whole person,--of Him that is both God and man in one
   person." (Declaration of the Glorious mystery of the Person of Christ;
   chap. xviii., in Owen's Works, vol. i. p. 234). Comp. also the
   admirable exposition of the article Passus est in Bishop Pearson's
   Exposition of the Creed (ed. Dobson, p. 283 ff.).

   [1645]  The Logos is, according to the scholastic terminology of the
   later Greek theologians, especially John of Damascus, idiosustatos, or
   idioupostatos, i.e., per se subsistens, and idioperioristos, proprio
   termino circumscriptus."Haec et similia vocabula," says the learned
   Petavius (Theol. Dogm. tom. iv. p. 430), "demonstrant hypostasin non
   aliena ope fultam ac sustentatam existere, sed per semet ipsam, ac
   proprio termino definitam." Schleiermacher's Christology therefore, on
   this point, forms the direct opposite, of the Chalcedonian; it makes
   the man Jesus the bearer of the personality, that is, transfers the
   proper centre of gravity in the personality to the human individuality
   of Christ, and views the divine nature as the supreme revelation of God
   in Him, as an impersonal principle, as a vital power. In this view the
   proper idea of the incarnation is lost. The same thing is true of the
   Christology of Hase, Keim, Beyschlag (and R. Rothe).

   [1646]  The correct Greek expression is, therefore, not anupostasiabut
   enupostasia. The human nature of Christ was anupostatos, impersonalis,
   before the incarnation, but became anupostatosby the incarnation, that
   is, en aute te tou Theou logou hupostasei hupostasa, and also
   heteroupostatos, and sunupostatos(compersonata), i.e., quod per se et
   proprie modo non subsistit, sed inest in alio per se subsistente et
   substantia cum eo copulatur. Christ did not assume a human person, but
   a humana natura, in qua ipse Deus homo nasceretur. The doctrine of the
   anhypostasia, impersonalitas, or rather enhypostasia, of the human
   nature of Christ, is already observed, in incipient form, in Cyril of
   Alexandria, and was afterwards more fully developed by John of Damascus
   (De orthodoxa fide, lib. iii.), who, however, did not, for all this,
   conceive Christ as a mere generic being typifying mankind, but as a
   concrete human individual. Comp. Petavius, De incarnatione, l. v. c.
   5-8 (tom. iv. p. 421 sqq.); Dorner, l. c. ii. p. 262 ff.; and J. P.
   Lange, Christliche Dogmatik, Part ii. p. 713.

   [1647]  Even in the scholastic era this difficulty was felt. Peter the
   Lombard says (Sentent. iii. d. 5 d.): Non accepit Verbum Dei personam
   hominis, sed naturam, quia non erat ex carne illa una composita
   persona, quam Verbum accepit, sed accipiendo univIt et uniendo accepit.
   E: A quibusdam opponitur, quod persona assumpsit personam. Persona enim
   est substantia naturalis individuae naturae, hoc autem est anima. Ergo
   si animam assumpsit et personam. Quod ideo non sequitur, quia anima non
   est persona, quando alii rei unita est personaliter, sed quando per se
   est. Illa autem anima nunquam fuIt quin esset alii rei conjuncta.

   [1648]  The Puritan theologian, John Owen (Works, vol. i. p. 223), says
   of the human nature of Christ quite correctly, and in agreement with
   the Chalcedonian Christology: "In itself it is anupostatos--that which
   hath not a subsistence of its own, which should give it individuation
   and distinction from the same nature in any other person. But it hath
   its subsistence in the person of the Son, which thereby is its own. The
   divine nature, as in that person, is its suppositum."

   [1649]  Dr. Baur (Geschichte der Trinitätslehre, Bd. i. p. 823 f.)
   imputes to the Creed of Chalcedon "untenable inconsistency, equivocal
   indefiniteness, and discordant incompleteness," but ascribes to it the
   merit of insisting upon the human in Christ as having equal claims with
   the divine, and of thus leaving the possibility of two equally
   legitimate points of view. Dr. Dorner, who regards the Chalcedonian
   statement as premature and inadequate (Geschichte der Christologie, Bd.
   ii. pp. 83, 130), raises against it the double objection of leaning to
   docetism on the one hand and to dualism on the other. He sums up his
   judgment of the labors of the ancient church down to John of Damascus
   in the sphere of Christology in the following words (ii. 273): "If we
   review the result of the Christological speculation of the ancient
   church, it is undeniable that the satisfying and final result cannot be
   found in it, great as its traditional influence even to this day is. It
   mutilates the human nature, inasmuch as, in an Apollinarian way, it
   joins to the trunk of a human nature the head of the divine hypostasis,
   and thus sacrifices the integrity of the humanity to the unity of the
   person. Yet after all--and this is only the converse of the same
   fault--in its whole doctrine of the natures and the will, it gives the
   divine and the human only an outward connection, and only, as it were,
   pushes the two natures into each other, without modification even of
   their properties. We discover, it is true, endeavors after something
   better, which indicate that the Christological image hovering before
   the mind, has not yet, with all the apparent completeness of the
   theory, found its adequate expression. But these endeavors are
   unfruitful." Dr. W. Beyschlag, in his essay before the German
   Evangelische Kirchentag at Altenburg, hold in 1864, concurs with these
   remarks, and says of the Chalcedonian dogma: "Instead of starting from
   the living intuition of the God-filled humanity of Christ, it proceeded
   from the defective and abstract conception of two separate natures, to
   be, as it were, added together in Christ; introduced thereby an
   irremediable dualism into his personal life; and at the same time, by
   transferring the personality wholly to the divine nature, depressed the
   humanity which in thesi it recognized, to a mere unsubstantial accident
   of the Godhead, at bottom only apparent and docetistic." But Beyschlag
   denies the real personal pre-existence of Christ and consequently a
   proper incarnation, and has by this denial caused no small scandal
   among the believing party in Germany. Dorner holds firmly to the
   pre-existence and incarnation, but makes the latter a gradual ethical
   unification of the Logos and the human nature, consummated in the
   baptism and the exaltation of Christ.

   [1650]  F. R. Hasse (Kirchengeschichte, i. p. 177): "By the Creed of
   Chalcedon justice has been done to both the Alexandrian and the
   Antiochian Christology; the antagonism of the two is adjusted, and in
   the dogma of the one theanthropos done away."

   [1651]  Witness the Christological investigations of Schleiermacher, R.
   Rothe, Göschel, Dorner, Liebner, Lange, Thomasius, Martensen, Gess,
   Ebrard, Schöberlein, Plitt, Beyschlag, and others. A thorough criticism
   of the latest theories is given by Dorner, in his large work on
   Christology, Bd. ii. p. 1260 ff. (Eng. transl. Div. 2d, vol. iii. p.
   l00 ff.), and in several dissertations upon the immutability of God,
   found in his Jabrbücher für Deutsche Theologie, 1856 and 1858; also by
   Philippi, Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. i. pp. 344-382; Plitt,
   Evangelische Glaubenslehre (1863), i. p. 360 ff.; and Woldemar Schmidt,
   Das Dogma vom Gottmenschen, mit Beziehung auf die neusten
   Lösungsversuche der Gegensätze, Leipzig, 1865. The English theology has
   contented itself with the traditional acceptance and vindication of the
   old Catholic doctrine of Christ's person, without instituting any
   special investigations of its own, while the doctrine of the Trinity
   has been thoroughly reproduced and vindicated by Cudworth, Bull, and
   Waterland, without, however, being developed further. Dr. Shedd also
   considers the Chalcedonian symbol as the ne plus ultra of
   Christological knowledge, "beyond which it is probable the human mind
   is unable to go, in the endeavor to unfold the mystery of Christ's
   complex person, which in some of its aspects is even more baffling than
   the mystery of the Trinity" (History of Christian Doctrine, i. p. 408).
   This is probably also the reason why this work, in surprising contrast
   with every other History of Doctrine, makes no mention whatever of the
   Monophysite, Monothelite, Adoptian, Scholastic, Lutheran, Socinian,
   Rationalistic, and later Evangelical controversies and theories
   respecting this central dogma of Christianity.

   [1652]  Of the doxa theou, John xvii. 5; the morphe Theou, Phil. ii. 6
   ff.

   [1653]  Among these modem Kenotics, W. F. Gess goes the farthest in his
   Lehre von der Person Christi (Basel, 1856). Dorner opposes the theory
   of the Kenotics and calls them Theopaschites and Patripassians (ii. 126
   ff.). There is, however, an essential distinction, inasmuch as the
   ancient Monophysite Theopaschitism reduces the human nature of Christ
   to a mere accident of his Godhead, while Thomasius, Gess, and the other
   German Kenotics or Kenosists acknowledge the full humanity of Christ,
   and lay great stress on it.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 143. The Monophysite Controversies.

   I. The Acta in Mansi, tom. vii.-ix. The writings already cited of
   Liberatus and Leontinus Byzant. Evagrius: H. E. ii. v. Nicephorus: H.
   E. xvi. 25. Procopius ( about 552): Anekdota, Hist. arcana (ed. Orelli,
   Lips. 1827). Facundus (bishop of Hermiane in Africa, but residing
   mostly in Constantinople): Pro defensione trium capitulorum, in 12
   books (written a.d. 547, ed. Sirmond, Paris, 1629, and in Galland. xi.
   665). Fulgentius Ferrandus (deacon in Carthage, 551): Pro tribus
   capitulis (in Gall. tom. xi.). Anastasius Sinaita (bishop of Antioch,
   564): Hodegosadv. Acephalos. Angelo Mai: Script vet. Bova collectio,
   tom. vii. A late, though unimportant, contribution to the history of
   Monophysitism (from 581 to 583) is the Church History of the
   Monophysite bishop John of Ephesus (of the sixth century): The Third
   Part of the Eccles. History of John, bishop of Ephesus, Oxford, 1853
   (edited by W. Cureton from the Syrian literature of the Nitrian
   convent).

   II. Petavius: De Incarnatione, lib. i. c. 16-18 (tom. iv. p. 74 sqq.).
   Walch: Bd, vi.-viii. Schröckh: Th. xviii. pp. 493-636. Neander:
   Kirchengeschichte, !v. 993-1038. Gieseler: i. ii. pp. 347-376 (4th
   ed.), and his Commentatio qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de Christi
   persona opiniones ... illustrantur (1835 and 1838). Baur: Geschichte
   der Trinitätslehre, Bd. ii. pp. 37-96. Dorner: Geschichte der
   Christologie, ii. pp. 150-193. Hefele (R.C.): Conciliengeschichte, ii.
   545 ff. F. Rud. Hasse: Kirchengeschichte (1864), Bd. i. p. 177 ff. A.
   Ebrard: Handbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte (1865), Bd. i. pp.
   263-279.

   The council of Chalcedon did not accomplish the intended pacification
   of the church, and in Palestine and Egypt it met with passionate
   opposition. Like the council of Nicaea, it must pass a fiery trial of
   conflict before it could be universally acknowledged in the church.
   "The metaphysical difficulty," says Niedner, "and the religious
   importance of the problem, were obstacles to the acceptance of the
   ecumenical authority of the council." Its opponents, it is true,
   rejected the Eutychian theory of an absorption of the human nature into
   the divine, but nevertheless held firmly to the doctrine of one nature
   in Christ; and on this account, from the time of the Chalcedonian
   council they were called Monophysites, [1654] while they in return
   stigmatized the adherents of the council as Dyophysites and Nestorians.
   They conceded, indeed, a composite nature (mia phusis sunthetosor mia
   phusis ditte), but not two natures. They assumed a diversity of
   qualities without corresponding substances, and made the humanity in
   Christ a mere accident of the immutable divine substance.

   Their main argument against Chalcedon was, that the doctrine of two
   natures necessarily led to that of two persons, or subjects, and
   thereby severed the one Christ into two Sons of God. They were entirely
   at one with the Nestorians in their use of the terms "nature" and
   "person," and in rejecting the orthodox distinction between the two.
   They could not conceive of human nature without personality. From this
   the Nestorians reasoned that, because in Christ there are two natures,
   there must be also two independent hypostases; the Monophysites, that,
   because there is but one person in Christ, there can be only one
   nature. They regarded the nature as something common to all individuals
   of a species (koinon), yet as never existing simply as such, but only
   in individuals. According to them, therefore, over, phusisor ousia is
   in fact always an individual existence. [1655]

   The liturgical shibboleth of the Monophysites was: God has been
   crucified. This they introduced into their public worship as an
   addition to the Trisagion: "Holy, God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal, who
   hast been crucified for us, have mercy upon us." [1656] From this they
   were also called Theopaschites. [1657] This formula is in itself
   orthodox, and forms the requisite counterpart to theotokos, provided we
   understand by God the Logos, and in thought supply: "according to the
   flesh" or "according to the human nature." In this qualified sense it
   was afterwards in fact not only sanctioned by Justinian in a dogmatical
   decree, but also by the fifth ecumenical council, though not as an
   addition to the Trisagion. For the theanthropic person of Christ is the
   subject, as of the nativity, so also of the passion; his human nature
   is the seat and the organ (sensorium) of the passion. But as an
   addition to the Trisagion, which refers to the Godhead generally, and
   therefore to the Father, and the Holy Ghost, as well as the Son, the
   formula is at all events incongruous and equivocal. Theopaschitism is
   akin to the earlier Patripassianism, in subjecting the impassible
   divine essence, common to the Father and the Son, to the passion of the
   God-Man on the cross; yet not, like that, by confounding the Son with
   the Father, but by confounding person with nature in the Son.

   Thus from the council of Chalcedon started those violent and
   complicated Monophysite controversies which convulsed the Oriental
   church, from patriarchs and emperors down to monks and peasants, for
   more than a hundred years, and which have left their mark even to our
   day. They brought theology little appreciable gain, and piety much
   harm; and they present a gloomy picture of the corruption of the
   church. The intense concern for practical religion, which animated
   Athanasius and the Nicene fathers, abated or went astray; theological
   speculation sank towards barren metaphysical refinements; and party
   watchwords and empty formulas were valued more than real truth. We
   content ourselves with but a summary of this wearisome, though not
   unimportant chapter of the history of doctrines, which has recently
   received new light from the researches of Gieseler, Baur, and Dorner.
   [1658]

   The external history of the controversy is a history of outrages and
   intrigues, depositions and banishments, commotions, divisions, and
   attempted reunions. Immediately after the council of Chalcedon bloody
   fights of the monks and the rabble broke out, and Monophysite factions
   went off in schismatic churches. In Palestine Theodosius (451-453) thus
   set up in opposition to the patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem; in
   Alexandria, Timotheus Aelurus [1659] and Peter Mongus [1660] (454-460),
   in opposition to the newly-elected patriarch Protarius, who was
   murdered in a riot in Antioch; Peter the Fuller [1661] (463-470). After
   thirty years' confusion the Monophysites gained a temporary victory
   under the protection of the rude pretender to the empire, Basiliscus
   (475-477), who in an encyclical letter, [1662] enjoined on all bishops
   to condemn the council of Chalcedon (476). After his fall, Zeno
   (474-475 and 477-491), by advice of the patriarch Acacius of
   Constantinople, issued the famous formula of concord, the Henoticon,
   which proposed, by avoiding disputed expressions, and condemning both
   Eutychianism and Nestorianism alike, to reconcile the Monophysite and
   dyophysite views, and tacitly set aside the Chalcedonian formula (482).
   But this was soon followed by two more schisms, one among the
   Monophysites themselves, and one between the East and the West. Felix
   II., bishop of Rome, immediately rejected the Henoticon, and renounced
   communion with the East (484-519). The strict Monophysites were as ill
   content with the Henoticon, as the adherents of the council of
   Chalcedon; and while the former revolted from their patriarchs, and
   became Acephali, [1663] the latter attached themselves to Rome. It was
   not till the reign of the emperor Justin I. (518-527), that the
   authority of the council of Chalcedon was established under stress of a
   popular tumult, and peace with Rome was restored. The Monophysite
   bishops were now deposed, and fled for the most part to Alexandria,
   where their party was too powerful to be attacked.

   The internal divisions of the Monophysites turned especially on the
   degree of essential difference between the humanity of Christ and
   ordinary human nature, and the degree, therefore, of their deviation
   from the orthodox doctrine of the full consubstantiality of the
   humanity of Christ with ours. [1664] The most important of these
   parties were the Severians (from Severus, the patriarch of Antioch) or
   Phthartolaters (adorers of the corruptible), [1665] who taught that the
   body of Christ before the resurrection was mortal and corruptible; and
   the Julianists (from bishop Julian of Halicarnassus, and his
   contemporary Xenajas of Hierapolis) or Aphthartodocetae, [1666] who
   affirmed the body of Christ to have been originally incorruptible, and
   who bordered on docetism. The former conceded to the Catholics, that
   Christ as to the flesh was consubstantial with us (kata sarka
   homoousios hemin). The latter argued from the commingling (sunchusis)
   of the two natures, that the corporeality of Christ became from the
   very beginning partaker of the incorruptibleness of the Logos, and was
   subject to corruptibleness merely kat oikonomian. They appealed in
   particular to Jesus' walking on the sea. Both parties were agreed as to
   the incorruptibleness of the body of Christ after the resurrection. The
   word fqorav, it may be remarked, was sometimes used in the sense of
   frailty, sometimes in that of corruptibleness.

   The solution of this not wholly idle question would seem to be, that
   the body of Christ before the resurrection was similar to that of Adam
   before the fall; that is, it contained the germ of immortality and
   incorruptibleness; but before its glorification it was subject to the
   influence of the elements, was destructible, and was actually put to
   death by external violence, but, through the indwelling power of the
   sinless spirit, was preserved from corruption, and raised again to
   imperishable life. A relative immortality thus became absolute. [1667]
   So far we may without self-contradiction affirm both the identity of
   the body of Christ before and after his resurrection, and its
   glorification after resurrection. [1668]

   The Severians were subdivided again, in respect to the question of
   Christ's omniscience, into Theodosians, and Themistians, or Agnoetae.
   [1669] The Julianists were subdivided into Ktistolatae, [1670] and
   Aktistetae [1671] according as they asserted or denied that the body of
   Christ was a created body. The most consistent Monophysite was the
   rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 550), who declared every attempt to
   distinguish between the divine and the human in Christ inadmissible,
   since they had become absolutely one in him. [1672] An abbot of Edessa,
   Bar Sudaili, extended this principle even to the creation, which be
   maintained would at last be wholly absorbed in God. John Philoponus
   (about 530) increased the confusion; starting with Monophysite
   principles, taking phusisin a concrete instead of an abstract sense,
   and identifying it with hupostasis, he distinguished in God three
   individuals, and so became involved in tritheism. This view he sought
   to justify by the Aristotelian categories of genus, species, and
   individuum. [1673]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1654]  Monophusitai, from mone or mia, phusis. They conceded the ek
   duo phusesin(as even Eutyches and Dioscurus had done), but denied the
   en duo phusesin, after the henosis .

   [1655]  Idikon.

   [1656]  Hagios ho Theos , agios ischuros , hagios athanatos , ho
   staurotheis di hemas , eleeson hemas. An extension of the seraphic
   ascription, Isa. vi. 3.

   [1657] 665  Theopaschitai.

   [1658]  The external history of Monophysitism is related with wearisome
   minuteness by Walch in three large volumes (vi.-viii.) of his Entwurf
   einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien, etc., his auf die Zeiten
   der Reformation.

   [1659]  Ailouros, Cat.

   [1660]  Mongos, the Stammerer; literally, the Hoarse.

   [1661]  Fullo, gnapheus. He introduced the formula: Theos estaurothe di
   hemasinto the liturgy. He was in 485 again raised to the patriarchate.

   [1662]  Enkuklion. This, however, excited so much opposition, that the
   usurper in 477 revoked it in an antenkuklion.

   [1663]  Akephaloi, without head.

   [1664]  Petavius, l.c. lib. i. c. 17, enumerates twelve factions of the
   Monophysites.

   [1665]  Phthartolatrai(from phthartoscorruptible, and latres, servant,
   worshipper), corrupticolae.

   [1666]  Aphthartodoketai, also called Phantasiastae, because they
   appeared to acknowledge only a seeming body of Christ. Gieseler,
   however, in the second part of the above-mentioned dissertation, has
   shown that the Julianist view was not strictly docetistic, but kindred
   with the view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary, Gregory of
   Nyssa, and Apollinaris.

   [1667]  Comp. the Augustinian distinction of immortalitas minor and
   immortalitas major.

   [1668]  As was done by Augustineand Leo the Great. The latter affirms,
   Sermo 69, De resurrectione Domini, c. 4: "Resurrectio Domini non finis
   carnis, sed commutatio fuit, nec virtutis augmento consumpta substantia
   est. Qualitas transiit, non natura defecit; et factum est corpus
   impassibile, immortale, incorruptibile ... nihil remansit in carne
   Christi infirmum, ut et ipsa sit per essentiam et non sit ipsa per
   gloriam." Comp. moreover, respecting the Aphthartodocetic controversy
   of the Monophysites, the remarks of Dorner, ii. 159 ff. and of Ebrard,
   Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, i. 268 f.

   [1669]  After their leader Themistius, deacon of Alexandria; also
   called by their opponents, Agnoetae, Agnoetai, because they taught that
   Christ in his condition of humiliation was not omniscient, but shared
   our ignorance of many things (Comp. Luke ii. 52; Mark xiii. 32). This
   view leads necessarily to dyophysitism, and accordingly was rejected by
   the strict Monophysites.

   [1670]  Ktistolatrai, or, from their founder, Gajanitae. These viewed
   the body of Christ as created, ktiston.

   [1671] 680  Aktistetai. These said that the body of Christ in itself
   was created, but that by its union with the Logos it became increate,
   and therefore also incorruptible.

   [1672]  His adherents were condemned by the other Monophysites as
   Niobitae.

   [1673]  His followers were called Philoponiaci, Tritheistae.
   Philoponus, it may be remarked, was not the first promulgator of this
   error; but (as appears from Assem. Bibl. orient. tom. ii. p. 327; comp.
   Hefele, ii. 655) the Monophysite John Askusnages, who ascribed to
   Christ only one nature, but to each person in the Godhead a separate
   nature, and on this account was banished by the emperor and
   excommunicated by the patriarch of Constantinople. Among the more
   famous Tritheists we have also Stephen Gobarus, about 600.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 144. The Three, Chapters, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 553.

   Comp., besides the literature already cited, H. Noris (R.C.): Historia
   Pelagiana et dissertatio de Synodo Quinta oecumen. in qua Origenis et
   Th. Mopsuesteni Pelagiani erroris auctorum justa damnatio, et
   Aquilejense schisma describitur, etc. Padua, 1673, fol., and Verona,
   1729. John Garnier (R.C.): Dissert. de V. Synodo. Paris, 1675 (against
   Card. Noris). Hefele (R.C.): vol. ii. 775-899.--The Greek Acta of the
   5th council, with the exception of the 14 anathemas and some fragments,
   have been lost; but there is extant an apparently contemporary Latin
   translation (in Mansi, tom. ix. 163 sqq.), respecting whose genuineness
   and completeness there has been much controversy (comp. Hefele, ii. p.
   831 ff.).

   The further fortunes of Monophysitism are connected with the emperor
   Justinian I. (527-565). This learned and unweariedly active ruler,
   ecclesiastically devout, but vain and ostentatious, aspired, during his
   long and in some respects brilliant reign of nearly thirty years, to
   the united renown of a lawgiver and theologian, a conqueror and a
   champion of the true faith. He used to spend whole nights in prayer and
   fasting, and in theological studies and discussions; he placed his
   throne under the special protection of the Blessed Virgin and the
   archangel Michael; in his famous Code, and especially in the Novelles,
   he confirmed and enlarged the privileges of the clergy; he adorned the
   capital and the provinces with costly temples and institutions of
   charity; and he regarded it as his especial mission to reconcile
   heretics, to unite all parties of the church, and to establish the
   genuine orthodoxy for all time to come. In all these undertakings he
   fancied himself the chief actor, though very commonly he was but the
   instrument of the empress, or of the court theologians and eunuchs; and
   his efforts to compel a general uniformity only increased the divisions
   in church and state.

   Justinian was a great admirer of the decrees of Chalcedon, and ratified
   the four ecumenical councils in his Code of Roman law. But his famous
   wife Theodora, a beautiful, crafty, and unscrupulous woman, whom he--if
   we are to believe the report of Procopius [1674] --raised from low
   rank, and even from a dissolute life, to the partnership of his throne,
   and who, as empress, displayed the greatest zeal for the church and for
   ascetic piety, was secretly devoted to the Monophysite view, and
   frustrated all his plans. She brought him to favor the liturgical
   formula of the Monophysites: "God was crucified for us, so that he
   sanctioned it in an ecclesiastical decree (533). [1675]

   Through her influence the Monophysite Anthimus was made patriarch of
   Constantinople (535), and the characterless Vigilius bishop of Rome
   (538), under the secret stipulation that he should favor the
   Monophysite doctrine. The former, however, was soon deposed as a
   Monophysite (536), and the latter did not keep his promise. [1676]
   Meanwhile the Origenistic controversies were renewed. The emperor was
   persuaded, on the one hand, to condemn the Origenistic errors in a
   letter to Mennas of Constantinople; on the other hand, to condemn by an
   edict the Antiochian teachers most odious to the Monophysites: Theodore
   of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), Theodoret of Cyros, and Ibas
   of Edessa (friends of Nestorius); though the last two had been
   expressly declared orthodox by the council of Chalcedon. Theodore he
   condemned absolutely, but Theodoret only as respected his writings
   against Cyril and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus, and Ibas as
   respected his letter to the Persian bishop Maris, in which he complains
   of the outrages of Cyril's party in Edessa, and denies the communicatio
   idiomatum. These are the so-called Three Chapters, or formulas of
   condemnation, or rather the persons and writings designated and
   condemned therein. [1677]

   Thus was kindled the violent controversy of the Three Chapters, of
   which it has been said that it has filled more volumes than it was
   worth lines. The East yielded easily to craft and force; the West
   resisted. [1678] Pontianus of Carthage declared that neither the
   emperor nor any other man had a right to sit in judgment upon the dead.
   Vigilius of Rome, however, favored either party according to
   circumstances, and was excommunicated for awhile by the dyophysite
   Africans, under the lead of Facundus of Hermiane. He subscribed the
   condemnation of the Three Chapters in Constantinople, a.d. 548, but
   refused to subscribe the second edict of the, emperor against the Three
   Chapters (551), and afterwards defended them.

   To put an end to this controversy, Justinian, without the concurrence
   of the pope, convoked at Constantinople, a.d. 553, the Fifth Ecumenical
   Council, which consisted of a hundred and sixty-four bishops, and held
   eight sessions, from the 5th of May to the 2d of June, under the
   presidency of the patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople. It
   anathematized the Three Chapters; that is, the person of Theodore of
   Mopsuestia, the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret, and the letter of
   Ibas, [1679] and sanctioned the formula "God was crucified," or "One of
   the Trinity has suffered," yet not as an addition to the Trisagion.
   [1680] The dogmatic decrees of Justinian were thus sanctioned by the
   church. But no further mention appears to have been made of Origenism;
   and in truth none was necessary, since a local synod of 544 had already
   condemned it. Perhaps also Theodore Askidas, a friend of the
   Origenists, and one of the leaders of the council, prevented the
   ecumenical condemnation of Origen. But this is a disputed point, and is
   connected with the difficult question of the genuineness and
   completeness of the Acts of the council. [1681]

   Vigilius at first protested against the Council, which, in spite of
   repeated invitations, he had not attended, and by which he was
   suspended; but he afterwards signified his adherence, and was
   permitted, after seven years' absence, to return to Rome, but died on
   the journey, at Syracuse, in 555. His fourfold change of opinion does
   poor service to the claim of papal infallibility. His successor,
   Pelagius I., immediately acknowledged the council. But upon this the
   churches in Northern Italy, Africa, and Illyria separated themselves
   from the Roman see, and remained in schism till Pope Gregory I. induced
   most of the Italian bishops to acknowledge the council.

   The result of this controversy, therefore, was the condemnation of the
   Antiochian theology, and the partial victory of the Alexandrian
   monophysite doctrine, so far as it could be reconciled with the
   definitions of Chalcedon. But the Chalcedonian dyophysitism afterwards
   reacted, in the form of dyothelitism, and at the sixth ecumenical
   council, at Constantinople, a.d. 680 (called also Concilium Trullanum
   I.), under the influence of a letter of pope Agatho, which reminds us
   of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo, it gained the victory over the
   Monothelite view, which so far involves the Monophysite, as the ethical
   conception of one will depends upon the physical conception of one
   nature.

   But notwithstanding the concessions of the fifth ecumenical council,
   the Monophysites remained separated from the orthodox church, refusing
   to acknowledge in any manner the dyophysite council of Chalcedon.
   Another effort of Justinian to gain them, by sanctioning the
   Aphthartodocetic doctrine of the incorruptibleness of Christ's body
   (564), threatened to involve the church in fresh troubles; but his
   death soon afterwards, in 565, put an end to these fruitless and
   despotic plans of union. His successor Justin II. in 565 issued an
   edict of toleration, which exhorted all Christians to glorify the Lord,
   without contending about persons and syllables. Since that time the
   history of the Monophysites has been distinct from that of the catholic
   church.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1674]  Historia Arcana. c. 9.

   [1675]  This addition remained in use among the Catholics in Syria till
   it was thrown out by the Concilium Quinisextum (can. 81). Thenceforth
   it was confined to the Monophysites and Monothelites. The opinion
   gained ground among the Catholics, that the formula taught a
   quaternity, instead of a trinity. Gieseler, i. P. ii. p. 366 ff.

   [1676]  Hefele (ii. p. 552) thinks that Vigilius was never a
   Monophysite at heart, and that he only gave the promise in the interest
   of "his craving ambition." The motive, however, of course cannot alter
   the fact, nor weaken the argument, furnished by his repeated
   recantations, against the claims of the papal see to infallibility.

   [1677]  Tria kephalaia, tria capitula. "Chapters" are properly
   articles, or brief propositions, under which certain errors are summed
   up in the form of anathemas. The twelve anathemas of Cyril against
   Nestorius were also called icEI)dAaia. By the Three Chapters, however,
   are to be understood in this case: 1. The person and writings of
   Theodore of Mopsuestia; 2. the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret; 3.
   the letter of Ibas to Maris. Hence the appellation impia capitula,
   aO'CGi Ke4paAaia. This deviation from ordinary usage has occasioned
   much confusion.

   [1678]  Especially the African Fulgentius Ferrandus, Liberatus, and
   Facundus of Hermiane, who wrote in defence of the Three Chapters; also
   the Roman deacon Rusticus.

   [1679]  These anathemas are found in the concluding sentence of the
   council (Mansi, tom. ix. 376): "Praedicta igitur tria capitula
   anathematizamus, id est Theodorum impium Mopsuestenum, cum nefandis
   ejus conscriptis, et quae impie Theodoretus conscripsit, et impiam
   epistolam, quae dicitur Ibae."

   [1680]  Collect viii. can. 10: Ei tisouk homologeiton estauomenon sarki
   kurion emon Iesoun Chridton einai Theon alethinon kaikurion tesdoxes,
   kaiena tesagiastriados, hotoitutosanathema eston. "Whoever does not
   acknowledge that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in the flesh,
   is true God and Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity, let him be
   anathema."

   [1681]  In the 11th anathema, it is true, the name of Origen is
   condemned along with other heretics (Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
   Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches), but the connection is incongruous,
   and the name is regarded by Halloix, Garnier, Jacob Basnage, Walch, and
   others, as all interpolation. Noris and Hefele (ii. p. 874) maintain
   its genuineness. At all events the fifteen anathemas against Origen do
   not belong to it, but to an earlier Constantinopolitan synod, held in
   544. Comp. Hefele, ii. p. 768 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 145. The Monophysite Sects: Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinians, Armenians,
   Maronites.

   Euseb. Renaudot (R.C., 1720): Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum
   Jacobitarum a D. Marco usque ad finem saec. xiii. Par. 1713. Also by
   the same: Liturgiarum orientalium collectio. Par. 1716, 2 vols. 4to.
   Jos. Sim. Assemani (R.C., 1768): Bibliotheca orientalis. Rom. 1719
   sqq., 4 vols. folio (vol. ii. treats De scriptoribus Syria
   Monophysitis). Michael le Quien (R.C., 1733): Oriens Christianus. Par.
   1740, 3 vols. folio (vols. 2 and 3). Veyssière De La Croze: Histoire du
   Christianisme d'Ethiope et d'Armenie. La Haye, 1739. Gibbon: Chapter
   xlvii. towards the end. Makrîzi (Mohammedan, an historian and jurist at
   Cairo, died 1441): Historia Coptorum Christianorum (Arabic and Latin),
   ed. H. T. Wetzer, Sulzbach, 1828; a better edition by F. Wüstenfeld,
   with translation and annotations, Göttingen, 1845. J. E. T. Wiltsch
   Kirchliche Statistik. Berlin, 1846, Bd. i. p. 225 ff. John Mason Neale
   (Anglican): The Patriarchate of Alexandria. London, 1847, 2 vols. Also:
   A History of the Holy Eastern Church. Lond. 1850, 2 vols. (vol. ii.
   contains among other things the Armenian and Copto-Jacobite Liturgy).
   E. Dulaurier: Histoire, dogmes, traditions, et liturgie de l'Eglise
   Armeniane. Par. 1859. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley: Lectures on the History
   of the Eastern Church. New York, 1862, Lect. i. p. 92 ff. Respecting
   the present condition of the Jacobites, Copts, Armenians, and
   Maronites, consult also works of Eastern travel, and the numerous
   accounts in missionary magazines and other religious periodicals.

   The Monophysites, like their antagonists, the Nestorians, have
   maintained themselves in the East as separate sects under their own
   bishops and patriarchs, even to the present day; thus proving the
   tenacity of those Christological errors, which acknowledge the full
   Godhead and manhood of Christ, while those errors of the ancient
   church, which deny the Godhead, or the manhood (Ebionism, Gnosticism,
   Manichaeism, Arianism, etc.), as sects, have long since vanished. These
   Christological schismatics stand, as if enchanted, upon the same
   position which they assumed in the fifth century. The Nestorians reject
   the third ecumenical council, the Monophysites the fourth; the former
   hold the distinction of two natures in Christ even to abstract
   separation, the latter the fusion of the two natures in one with a
   stubbornness which has defied centuries, and forbids their return to
   the bosom of the orthodox Greek church. They are properly the ancient
   national churches of Egypt, Syria, and Armenia, in distinction from the
   orthodox Greek church, and the united or Roman church of the East.

   The Monophysites are scattered upon the mountains and in the valleys
   and deserts of Syria, Armenia, Assyria, Egypt, and Abyssinia, and, like
   the orthodox Greeks of those countries, live mostly under Mohammedan,
   partly under Russian, rule. They supported the Arabs and Turks in
   weakening and at last conquering the Byzantine empire, and thus
   furthered the ultimate victory of Islam. In return, they were variously
   favored by the conquerors, and upheld in their separation from the
   Greek church. They have long since fallen into stagnation, ignorance,
   and superstition, and are to Christendom as a praying corpse to a
   living man. They are isolated fragments of the ancient church history,
   and curious petrifactions from the Christological battle-fields of the
   fifth and sixth centuries, coming to view amidst Mohammedan scenes. But
   Providence has preserved them, like the Jews, and doubtless not without
   design, through storms of war and persecution, unchanged until the
   present time. Their very hatred of the orthodox Greek church makes them
   more accessible both to Protestant and Roman missions, and to the
   influences of Western Christianity and Western civilization.

   On the other hand, they are a door for Protestantism to the Arabs and
   the Turks; to the former through the Jacobites, to the latter through
   the Armenians. There is the more reason to hope for their conversion,
   because the Mohammedans despise the old Oriental churches, and must be
   won, if at all, by a purer type of Christianity. In this respect the
   American missions among the Armenians in the Turkish empire, are, like
   those among the Nestorians in Persia, of great prospective importance,
   as outposts of a religion which is destined sooner or later to
   regenerate the East.

   With the exception of the Chalcedonian Christology, which they reject
   as Nestorian heresy, most of the doctrines, institutions, and rites of
   the Monophysite sects are common to them with the orthodox Greek
   church. They reject, or at least do not recognize, the filioque; they
   hold to the mass, or the Eucharistic sacrifice, with a kind of
   transubstantiation; leavened bread in the Lord's Supper; baptismal
   regeneration by trine immersion; seven sacraments (yet not explicitly,
   since they either have no definite term for sacrament, or no settled
   conception of it); the patriarchal polity; monasticism; pilgrimages,
   and fasting; the requisition of a single marriage for priests and
   deacons (bishops are not allowed to marry); [1682] the prohibition of
   the eating of blood or of things strangled. [1683] On the other hand,
   they know nothing of purgatory and indulgences, and have a simpler
   worship than the Greeks and Romans. According to their doctrine, all
   men after death go into Hades, a place alike without sorrow or joy;
   after the general judgment they enter into heaven or are cast into
   hell; and meanwhile the intercessions and pious works of the living
   have an influence on the final destiny of the departed. Like the
   orthodox Greeks, they honor pictures and relics of the saints, but not
   in the same degree. Scripture and tradition are with them coordinate
   sources of revelation and rules of faith. The reading of the Bible is
   not forbidden, but is limited by the ignorance of the people
   themselves. They use in worship the ancient vernacular tongues, which,
   however, are now dead languages to them.

   There are four branches of the Monophysites: the Syrian Jacobites; the
   Copts, including the Abyssinians; the Armemians; and the less ancient
   Maronites.

   I. The Jacobites in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. Their name comes
   down from their ecumenical [1684] metropolitan Jacob, surnamed Baradai,
   or Zanzalus. [1685] This remarkable man, in the middle of the sixth
   century, devoted himself for seven and thirty years (511-578), with
   unwearied zeal to the interests of the persecuted Monophysites.
   "Light-footed as Asahel," [1686] and in the garb of a beggar, he
   journeyed hither and thither amid the greatest dangers and privations;
   revived the patriarchate of Antioch; ordained bishops, priests, and
   deacons; organized churches; healed divisions; and thus saved the
   Monophysite body from impending extinction.

   The patriarch bears the title of patriarch of Antioch, because the
   succession is traced back to Severus of Antioch; but he commonly
   resides in Diarbekir, or other towns or monasteries. Since the
   fourteenth century, the patriarch has always borne the name Ignatius,
   after the famous martyr and bishop of Antioch. The Jacobite monks are
   noted for gross superstition and rigorous asceticism. A part of the
   Jacobites have united with the church of Rome. Lately some Protestant
   missionaries from America have also found entrance among them.

   II. The Copts, [1687] in Egypt, are in nationality the genuine
   descendants of the ancient Egyptians, though with an admixture of Greek
   and Arab blood. Soon after the council of Chalcedon, they chose
   Timotheus Aelurus in opposition to the patriarch Proterius. After
   varying fortunes, they have, since 536, had their own patriarch of
   Alexandria, who, like most of the Egyptian dignitaries, commonly
   resides at Cairo. He accounts himself the true successor of the
   evangelist Mark, St. Athanasius, and Cyril. He is always chosen from
   among the monks, and, in rigid adherence to the traditionary nolo
   episcopari, he is elected against his will; he is obliged to lead a
   strict ascetic life, and at night is waked every quarter of an hour for
   a short prayer. He alone has the power to ordain, and he performs this
   function not by imposition of hands, but by breathing on and anointing
   the candidate. His jurisdiction extends over the churches of Egypt,
   Nubia, and Abyssinia, or Ethiopia. He chooses and anoints the Abuna
   (i.e., Our Father), or patriarch for Abyssinia. Under him are twelve
   bishops, some with real jurisdiction, some titular; and under these
   again other clergy, down to readers and exorcists. There are still
   extant two incomplete Coptic versions of the Scriptures, the Upper
   Egyptian or Thebaic, called also, after the Arabic name of the
   province, the Sahidic, i.e., Highland version; and the Lower Egyptian
   or Memphitic. [1688]

   The Copts were much more numerous than the Catholics, whom they
   scoffingly nicknamed Melchites, [1689] or Caesar-Christians. They lived
   with them on terms of deadly enmity, and facilitated the conquest of
   Egypt by the Saracens (641). But they were afterwards cruelly
   persecuted by these very Saracens, [1690] and dwindled from some two
   millions of souls to a hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand, of
   whom about ten thousand, or according to others from thirty to sixty
   thousand, live in Cairo, and the rest mostly in Upper Egypt. They now,
   in common with all other religious sects, enjoy toleration. They and
   the Abyssinians are distinguished from the other Monophysites by the
   Jewish and Mohammedan practice of circumcision, which is performed by
   lay persons (on both sexes), and in Egypt is grounded upon sanitary
   considerations. They still observe the Jewish law of meats. They are
   sunk in poverty, ignorance, and semi-barbarism. Even the clergy, who
   indeed are taken from the lowest class of the people, are a beggarly
   set, and understand nothing but how to read mass, and perform the
   various ceremonies. They do not even know the Coptic or old Egyptian,
   their own ancient ecclesiastical language. They live by farming, and
   their official fees. The literary treasures of their convents in the
   Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic languages, have been of late secured for the
   most part to the British Museum, by Tattam and other travellers.

   Missions have lately been undertaken among them, especially by the
   Church Missionary Society of England (commencing in 1825), and the
   United Presbyterians of America, but with little success so far. [1691]

   The Abyssinian church is a daughter of the Coptic, and was founded in
   the fourth century, by two missionaries from Alexandria, Frumentius and
   Aedesius. It presents a strange mixture of barbarism, ignorance,
   superstition, and Christianity. Its Ethiopic Bible, which dates perhaps
   from the first missionaries, includes in the Old Testament the
   apocryphal book of Enoch. The Chronicles of Axuma (the former capital
   of the country), dating from the fourth century, receive almost the
   same honor as the Bible. The council of Chalcedon is accounted an
   assembly of fools and heretics. The Abyssinian church has retained even
   more Jewish elements than the Coptic. It observes the Jewish Sabbath
   together with the Christian Sunday; it forbids the use of the flesh of
   swine and other unclean beasts; it celebrates a yearly feast of general
   lustration or rebaptizing of the whole nation; it retains the model of
   a sacred ark, called the ark of Zion, to which gifts and prayers are
   offered, and which forms the central point of public worship. It
   believes in the magical virtue of outward ceremonies, especially
   immersion, as the true regeneration. Singularly enough it honors
   Pontius Pilate as a saint, because be washed his hands of innocent
   blood. The endless controversies respecting the natures of Christ,
   which have died out elsewhere still rage there. The Abyssinians honor
   saints and pictures, but not images; crosses, but not the crucifix.
   Every priest carries a cross in his hand, and presents it to every one
   whom he meets, to be kissed. The numerous churches are small and
   dome-shaped above, and covered with reeds and straw. On the floor lie a
   number of staves and crutches, on which the people support themselves
   during the long service, as, like all the Orientals, they are without
   benches. Slight as are its remains of Christianity, Abyssinia still
   stands, in agriculture, arts, laws, and social condition, far above the
   heathen countries of Africa--a proof that even a barbaric Christianity
   is better than none.

   The influences of the West have penetrated even to Abyssinia. The
   missions of the Jesuits in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
   and of the Protestants in the nineteenth, have been prosecuted amidst
   many dangers and much self-denial, yet hitherto with but little
   success. [1692]

   III. The Armenians. These are the most numerous, interesting, and
   hopeful of the Monophysite sects, and now the most accessible to
   evangelical Protestantism. Their nationality reaches back into hoary
   antiquity, like Mount Ararat, at whose base lies their original home.
   They were converted to Christianity in the beginning of the fourth
   century, under King Tiridates, by Gregory the Enlightener, the first
   patriarch and ecclesiastical writer and the greatest saint of the
   Armenians. [1693] They were provided by him with monasteries and
   seminaries, and afterwards by Mesrob [1694] with a version of the
   Scriptures, made from the Greek with the help of the Syriac Peschito;
   which at the same time marks the beginning of the Armenian literature,
   since Mesrob had first to invent his alphabet. The Armenian canon has
   four books found in no other Bible; in the Old Testament, the History
   of Joseph and Asenath, and the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, and
   in the New, the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul and a Third, but
   spurious, Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. The next oldest work in
   the Armenian language is the history of their land and people, by Moses
   Chorenensis, a half century later.

   The Armenians fell away from the church of the Greek Empire in 552,
   from which year they date their era. The Persians favored the
   separation on political grounds, but were themselves thoroughly hostile
   to Christianity, and endeavored to introduce the Zoroastrian religion
   into Armenia. The Armenian church, being left unrepresented at the
   council of Chalcedon through the accidental absence of its bishops,
   accepted in 491 the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, and at the synod of
   Twin (Tevin or Tovin, the capital at that time), held a.d. 595,
   declared decidedly for the Monophysite doctrine. The Confessio
   Armenica, which in other respects closely resembles the Nicene Creed,
   is recited by the priest at every morning service. The Armenian church
   had for a long time only one patriarch or Catholicus, who at first
   resided in Sebaste, and afterwards in the monastery of Etschmiezin
   (Edschmiadsin), their holy city, at the foot of Mount Ararat, near
   Erivan (now belonging to Russia), and had forty-two archbishops under
   him. At his consecration the dead hand of Gregory the Enlightener is
   even yet always used, as the medium of tactual succession. Afterwards
   other patriarchal sees were established, at Jerusalem (in 1311), at
   Sis, in Cilicia (in 1440), and after the fall of the Greek empire in
   Constantinople (1461). [1695]   In 637 Armenia fell under Mohammedan
   dominion, and belongs now partly to Turkey and partly to Russia. But
   the varying fortunes and frequent oppressions of their country have
   driven many thousands of the Armenians abroad, and they are now
   scattered in other parts of Russia and Turkey, as well as in Persia,
   India, and Austria.

   The Armenians of the diaspora are mostly successful traders and
   brokers, and have become a nation and a church of merchant princes,
   holding great influence in Turkey. Their dispersion, and love of trade,
   their lack of political independence, their tenacious adherence to
   ancient national customs and rites, the oppressions to which they are
   exposed in foreign countries, and the influence which they nevertheless
   exercise upon these countries, make their position in the Orient,
   especially in Turkey, similar to that of the Jews in the Christian
   world.

   The whole number of the Armenians is very variously estimated, from two
   and a half up to fifteen millions. [1696]

   The Armenian church, it may be remarked, has long been divided into two
   parts, which, although internally very similar, are inflexibly opposed
   to each other. The united Armenians, since the council of Florence,
   a.d. 1439, have been connected with the church of Rome. To them belongs
   the congregation of the Mechitarists, which was founded by the Abbot
   Mechitar ( 1749), and possesses a famous monastery on the island of San
   Lazzaro near Venice, from which centre it has successfully labored
   since 1702 for Armenian literature and education in the interest of the
   Roman Catholic church. [1697] The schismatical Armenians hold firmly to
   their peculiar ancient doctrines and polity. They regard themselves as
   the orthodox, and call the united or Roman Armenians schismatics.

   Since 1830, the Protestant Missionary, Tract, and Bible societies of
   England, Basle, and the United States, have labored among the Armenians
   especially among the Monophysite portion, with great success, The
   American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, [1698] in
   particular, has distributed Bibles and religious books in the Armenian
   and Armeno-Turkish [1699] language, and founded flourishing churches
   and schools in Constantinople, Broosa, Nicomedia, Trebizond, Erzroom,
   Aintab, Kharpoot, Diarbekir, and elsewhere. Several of these churches
   have already endured the crucial test of persecution, and justify
   bright hopes for the future. As the Jewish Synagogues of the diaspora
   were witnesses for monotheism among idolaters, and preparatory schools
   of Christianity, so are these Protestant Armenian churches, as well as
   the Protestant Nestorian, outposts of evangelical civilization in the
   East, and perhaps the beginning of a resurrection of primitive
   Christianity in the lands of the Bible and harbingers of the future
   conversion of the Mohammedans. [1700]

   IV. The youngest sect of the Monophysites, and the solitary memorial of
   the Monothelite controversy, are the Maronites, so called from St.
   Maron, and the eminent monastery founded by him in Syria (400). [1701]
   They inhabit the range of Lebanon, with its declivities and valleys,
   from Tripolis on the North to the neighborhood of Tyre and the lake of
   Gennesaret on the South, and amount at most to half a million. They
   have also small churches in Aleppo, Damascus, and other places. They
   are pure Syrians, and still use the Syriac language in their liturgy,
   but speak Arabic. They are subject to a patriarch, who commonly resides
   in the monastery of Kanobin on Mt. Lebanon. They were originally
   Monothelites, even after the doctrine of one will of Christ, which is
   the ethical complement of the doctrine of one nature, had been rejected
   at the sixth ecumenical Council (a.d. 680). But after the Crusades
   (1182), and especially after 1596, they began to go over to the Roman
   church, although retaining the communion under both kinds, their Syriac
   missal, the marriage of priests, and their traditional fast-days, with
   some saints of their own, especially St: Maron.

   From these came, in the eighteenth century, the three celebrated
   Oriental scholars, the Assemani, Joseph Simon ( 1768), his brother
   Joseph Aloysius, and their cousin Stephen Evodius. These were born on
   Mt. Lebanon, and educated at the Maronite college at Rome.

   There are also Maronites in Syria, who abhor the Roman church. [1702]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1682]  Laymen are allowed to marry twice, but a third marriage is
   regarded as fornication.

   [1683]  Comp. Acts xv. 20. The Latin church saw in this ordinance of
   the apostolic council merely a temporary measure during the existence
   of Jewish Christianity.

   [1684]  Ecumenical, i.e., not restricted to any particular province.

   [1685]  From his beggarly clothing. Barâdai signifies in Arabic and
   Syriac horse blanket, of coarse cloth, and tzanzalonis vile aliquid et
   tritum (see Rödiger in Herzog's Encycl. vi. 401).

   [1686]  2 Sam. ii. 18.

   [1687]  From aiguptos, Guptos, and not, as some suppose, from the town
   Koptos, nor from an abbreviation of Jacobite. They are the most
   ancient, but Christian Egyptians, in distinction from the Pharaonic
   (Chem), those of the Old Testament (Mizrim), the Macedonian or Greek
   (aig.) and the modem Arab Egyptians (Misr).

   [1688]  Of this latter H. Tattam and P. Bötticher (1852) have lately
   published considerable fragments.

   [1689]  From the Hebrew melech, king.

   [1690]  So that even their Arabic historian Makr<zi was moved to
   compassion for them.

   [1691]  A detailed, but very unfavorable description of the Copts is
   given by Edward W. Lane in his "Manners and Customs of the Modern
   Egyptians," 1833. Notwithstanding this they stand higher than the other
   Egyptians. A. P. Stanley (Hist. of the Eastern Church, p. 95) says of
   them: "The Copts are still, even in their degraded state, the most
   civilized of the natives: the intelligence of Egypt still lingers in
   the Coptic scribes, who are on this account used as clerks in the
   offices of their conquerors, or as registrars of the water-marks of the
   Nile." Comp. also the occasional notices of the Copts in the
   Egyptological writings of Wilkinson, Bunsen, Lepsius, Brugsch, and
   others.

   [1692]  Especially worthy of note are the labors of the Basle
   missionaries, Samuel Gobat (now Anglican bishop in Jerusalem), Kugler,
   Isenberg, Blumhardt, and Krapf since 1830. Comp. Gobatin the Basler
   Missionsmagazin for 1834, Part 1 and 2. Isenberg: Abyssinien und die
   evangelische Mission, Bonn, 1844, 2 Bde. and Isenbergand Krapf:
   Journals, 1843. Also Harris: Highlands of Ethiopia 1844. The imported
   fragments of an Abyssinian translation of the Bible, dating from the
   fourth or fifth century, have drawn the attention of Westem scholars.
   Prof. A. Dillmann (now in Giessen) has since 1854 published the
   Aethiopic Old Testament, a grammar, and a lexicon of the Aethiopic
   language. Of the older works on Abyssinia the principal are Ludolphus:
   Historia Aethiopica, Frankf. 1681; Geddes: Church History of Aethiopia,
   Lond. 1696, and La Croze: Histoire du Christianisme d'Ethiopie et
   d'Armenie, La Haye, 1739. They have all drawn their principal materials
   from the Jesuits, especially from the general history of Tellez,
   published 1660.

   [1693]  Photistes, Illuminator. He was married and had several sons. He
   was urgently invited to the Nicene council, but sent his son Aristax in
   his stead, to whom he resigned his office, and then withdrew himself
   for the rest of his life into a mountain-cave. There are homilies of
   his still extant, which were first printed in 1737 in Constantinople.

   [1694]  Called Mesrop, Mjesrob, Mjesrop, and Marchtoz. Comp. respecting
   this man and the origin of the Armenian version of the Bible, the
   chronicle of his pupil, Moses Chorenensis, and the article by Petermann
   in Herzog's Encycl. Bd. ix. p. 370 ff.

   [1695]  Respecting the patriarchal and metropolitan sees and the
   bishoprics of the Armenians, comp. Le Quien, tom. i., and Wiltsch,
   Kirchliche Geographie und Statistik, ii. p. 375 ff.

   [1696]  Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, p. 92), supported by
   Neale and Haxthausen (Transcaucasia), estimates the number of the
   Armenians at over eight millions. But Dr. G. W. Wood, of New York,
   formerly a missionary among them, informs me that their total number
   probably does not exceed six millions, of whom about two and a half
   millions are probably in Turkey.

   [1697]  Comp. C. F. Neumann: Geschichte der armenischen Literatur nach
   den Werken der Mechitaristen, Leipzig, 1836. The chief work of the
   Mechitarists is the history of Armenia, by P. Michael Tschamtschean (
   1823), in three vols., Venice, 1784.

   [1698]  This oldest and most extensive of American missionary societies
   was founded a.d.1810, and is principally supported by the
   Congregationalists and New School Presbyterians.

   [1699]  The Armeno-Turkish is the Turkish language written in Armenian
   characters.

   [1700]  Compare, respecting the Armenian mission of the American Board,
   the publications of this Society; Eli Smithand H. G. O. Dwight:
   Missionary Researches in Armenia, Boston, 1833; Dr. H. G. O. Dwight:
   Christianity revived in the East, New York, 1850; H. Newcomb:
   Cyclopaedia of Missions, pp. 124-154. The principal missionaries among
   the Armenians are H. G. O. Dwight, W. Goodell, C. Hamlin, G. W. Wood,
   F. Riggs, D. Ladd, P. O. Powers, W. G. Schauffler (a Würtemberger, but
   educated at the Theol. Seminary of Andover, Mass.), and Benj. Schneider
   (a German from Pennsylvania, but likewise a graduate of Andover).

   [1701]  He is probably the same Maron whose life Theodoret wrote, and
   to whom Chrysostomaddressed a letter when in exile. He is not to be
   confounded with the later John Maron, of the seventh century, who,
   according to the legendary traditions of the catholic Maronites, acting
   as papal legate at Antioch, converted the whole of Lebanon to the Roman
   church, and became their first patriarch. T he name "Maronites" occurs
   first in the eighth century, and that as a name of heretics, in John of
   Damascus.

   [1702]  Respecting the present condition of the Maronites, comp. also
   Robinson's Palestine, Ritter's Erdkunde, Bd. xvii. Abtheil. 1, and
   Rödiger's article in Herzog's Encycl. Bd. x. p. 176 ff. A few years ago
   (1860), the Maronites drew upon themselves the sympathies of
   Christendom by the cruelties which their old hereditary enemies, the
   Druses, perpetrated upon them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 146. Character of the Pelagian Controversy.

   IV. The Anthropological Controversies.

   WORKS ON THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY IN GENERAL.

   Sources:

   I. Pelagius: Expositiones in epistolas Paulinas (composed before 410);
   Epistola ad Demetriadem, in 30 chapters (written a.d. 413); Libellus
   fidei ad Innocentium I. (417, also falsely called Explanatio Symboli ad
   Damasum). These three works have been preserved complete, as supposed
   works of Jerome, and have been incorporated in the Opera of this father
   (tom. xi. ed. of Vallarsius). Of the other writings of Pelagius (De
   natura; De libero arbitrio; Capitula; Epist. ad Innocent. I., which
   accompanied the Libellus fidei), we have only fragments in the works of
   his opponents, especially Augustine. In like manner we have only
   fragments of the writings of Coelestius: Definitiones; Symbolum ad
   Zosimum; and of Julianus of Eclanum: Libri iv. ad Turbantium episcopum
   contra Augustini primum de nuptiis; Libri viii. ad Florum contra
   Augustini secundum de nuptiis. Large and literal extracts in the
   extended replies of Augustine to Julian

   II. Augustinus: De peccatorum meritis et remissione (412); De spiritu
   et litera (418); De natura et gratia (415); De gestis Pelagii (417); De
   gratia Christi et de peccato originali (418); De nuptiis et
   concupiscentia (419); Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum (420); Contra
   Julianum, libri vi. (421); Opus imperfectum contra Julianum (429); De
   gratia et libero arbitrio (426 or 427); De correptione et gratia (427)
   De praedestinatione sanctorum (428 or 429); De dono perseverantivae
   (429); and other anti-Pelagian writings, which are collected in the
   10th volume of his Opera, in two divisions, ed. Bened. Par. 1690, and
   again Venet. 1733. (it is the Venice Bened. edition from which I have
   quoted throughout in this section. In Migne's edition of Aug., Par.
   1841, the anti-Pelagian writings form likewise the tenth tomus of 1912
   pages.) Hieronymus: Ep. 133 (in Vallarsi's, and in Migne's ed.; or, Ep.
   43 in the Bened. ed.) ad Ctesiphontem (315); Dialogi contra Pelagianos,
   libri iii. (Opera, ed. Vallars. vol. ii. f. 693-806, and ed. Migne, ii.
   495-590). P. Orosius: Apologeticus c. Pelag. libri iii. (Opera, ed.
   Haverkamp). Marius Mercator, a learned Latin monk in Constantinople
   (428-451): Commonitoria, 429, 431 (ed. Baluz. Paris, 1684, and Migne,
   Par. 1846). Collection of the Acta in Mansi, tom. iv.

   Literature:

   Gerh. Joh. Vossius: Hist. de controversiis, quas Pelagius ejusque
   reliquiae moverunt, libri vii. Lugd. Batav. 1618 (auct. ed. Amstel.
   1655). Cardinal Henr. Norisius: Historia Pelagiana et dissert. de
   Synodo Quinta Oecumen. Batavii, 1673, fol. (and in Opera, Veron. 1729,
   i.). Garnier (Jesuit): Dissert. vii. quibus integra continentur
   Pelagianorum hist. (in his ed. of the Opera of Marius Mercator, i.
   113). The Praefatio to the 10th vol. of the Benedictine edition of
   Augustine's Opera. Corn. Jansenius ( 1638): Augustinus, sive doctrina
   S. Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudine, medicina, adv.
   Pelagianos et Massilienses. Lovan. 1640, fol. (He read Augustine twenty
   times, and revived his system in the Catholic church.) Tillemont:
   Mémoires, etc. Tom. xiii. pp. 1-1075, which is entirely devoted to the
   life of Augustine. Ch. Wilh. Fr. Walch: Ketzerhistorie. Leipz. 1770.
   Bd. iv. and v. Schröckh: Kirchengeschichte. Parts xiv. and xv. (1790).
   G. F. Wiggers (sen.): Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des
   Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, in zwei Theilen. Hamburg, 1833. (The
   first part appeared 1821 in Berlin; the second, which treats of
   Semi-Pelagianism, in 1833 at Hamburg. The common title-page bears date
   1833. The first part has also been translated into English by Prof.
   Emerson, Andover, 1840). J. L. Jacobi: Die Lehre des Pelagius. Leipzig,
   1842. F. Böhringer: Die Kirche Christi in Biographien. Bd. i. Th. 3,
   pp. 444-626, Zürich, 1845. Gieseler: Kirchengeschichte. Bd. i. Abth. 2
   pp. 106-131 (4th ed. 1845, entirely favorable to Pelagianism). Neander:
   Kirchengeschichte. Bd. iv. (2d ed. 1847, more Augustinian). Schaff: The
   Pelagian Controversy, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, May, 1848 (No.
   xviii.). Theod. Gangauf: Metaphysische Psychologie des heiligen
   Augustinus. Augsb. 1852. Thorough, but not completed. H. Hart Milman:
   History of Latin Christianity. New York, 1860, vol. i. ch. ii. pp.
   164-194. Jul. Müller: Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde. Bresl. 1838,
   5th ed. 1866, 2 vols. (An English translation by Pulsford, Edinburgh.)
   The same: Der Pelagianismus. Berlin, 1854. (A brief, but admirable
   essay.) Hefele: Conciliengeschichte. Bd. ii. 1856, p. 91 ff. W.
   Cunningham: Historical Theology. Edinburgh, 1863, vol. i, pp. 321-358.
   Fr. Wörter (R.C.): Der Pelagianismus nach seinem Ursprung und seiner
   Lehre. Freiburg, 1866. Nourrisson: La philosophie de S. Augustin. Par.
   1866, 2 vols. (vol. i. 452 ff.; ii. 352 ff.). Comp. also the literature
   in § 178, and the relevant chapters in the Doctrine-Histories of
   Münscher, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hagenbach, Neander, Baur, Beck, Shedd.

   While the Oriental Church was exhausting her energies in the
   Christological controversies, and, with the help of the West, was
   developing the ecumenical doctrine of the person of Christ, the Latin
   church was occupied with the great anthropological and soteriological
   questions of sin and grace, and was bringing to light great treasures
   of truth, without either help from the Eastern church or influence upon
   her. The third ecumenical council, it is true, condemned Pelagianism,
   but without careful investigation, and merely on account of its casual
   connection with Nestorianism. The Greek historians, Socrates, Sozomen,
   Theodoret, and Evagrius, although they treat of that period, take not
   the slightest notice of the Pelagian controversies. In this fact we see
   the predominantly practical character of the West, in contradistinction
   to the contemplative and speculative East. Yet the Christological and
   anthropologico-soteriological controversies are vitally connected,
   since Christ became man for the redemption of man. The person and the
   work of the Redeemer presuppose on the one hand man's capability of
   redemption, and on the other his need of redemption. Manichaeism denies
   the former, Pelagianism the latter. In opposition to these two
   fundamental anthropological heresies, the church was called to develope
   the whole truth.

   Before Augustine the anthropology of the church was exceedingly crude
   and indefinite. There was a general agreement as to the apostasy and
   the moral accountability of man, the terrible curse of sin, and the
   necessity of redeeming grace; but not as to the extent of native
   corruption, and the relation of human freedom to divine grace in the
   work of regeneration and conversion. The Greek, and particularly the
   Alexandrian fathers, in opposition to the dualism and fatalism of the
   Gnostic systems, which made evil a necessity of nature, laid great
   stress upon human freedom, and upon the indispensable cooperation of
   this freedom with divine grace; while the Latin fathers, especially
   Tertullian and Cyprian, Hilary and Ambrose, guided rather by their
   practical experience than by speculative principles, emphasized the
   hereditary sin and hereditary guilt of man, and the sovereignty of
   God's grace, without, however, denying freedom and individual
   accountability. [1703] The Greek church adhered to her undeveloped
   synergism, [1704] which coordinates the human will and divine grace as
   factors in the work of conversion; the Latin church, under the
   influence of Augustine, advanced to the system of a divine, monergism,
   [1705] which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result
   of grace; while Pelagianism, on the contrary, represented the principle
   of a human monergism, which ascribes the chief merit of conversion to
   man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary. After Augustine's
   death, however the intermediate system of Semi-Pelagianism, akin to the
   Greek synergism, became prevalent in the West.

   Pelagius and Augustine, in whom these opposite forms of monergism were
   embodied, are representative men, even more strictly than Arius and
   Athanasius before them, or Nestorius and Cyril after them. The one, a
   Briton, more than once convulsed the world by his errors; the other, an
   African, more than once by his truths. They represented principles and
   tendencies, which, in various modifications, extend through the whole
   history of the church, and reappear in its successive epochs. The
   Gottschalk controversy in the ninth century, the Reformation, the
   synergistic controversy in the Lutheran church, the Arminian in the
   Reformed, and the Jansenistic in the Roman Catholic, only reproduce the
   same great contest in new and specific aspects. Each system reflects
   the personal character and experience of its author. Pelagius was an
   upright monk, who without inward conflicts won for himself, in the way
   of tranquil development, a legal piety which knew neither the depths of
   sin nor the heights of grace. Augustine, on the other hand, passed
   through sharp convulsions and bitter conflicts, till he was overtaken
   by the unmerited grace of God, and created anew to a life of faith and
   love. Pelagius had a singularly clear, though contracted mind, and an
   earnest moral purpose, but no enthusiasm for lofty ideals; and hence he
   found it not hard to realize his lower standard of holiness. Augustine
   had a bold and soaring intellect, and glowing heart, and only found
   peace after he had long been tossed by the waves of passion; he had
   tasted all the misery of sin, and then all the glory of redemption, and
   this experience qualified him to understand and set forth these
   antagonistic powers far better than his opponent, and with a strength
   and fulness surpassed only by the inspired apostle Paul. Indeed,
   Augustine, of all the fathers, most resembles, in experience and
   doctrine, this very apostle, and stands next to him in his influence
   upon the Reformers.

   The Pelagian controversy turns upon the mighty antithesis of sin and
   grace. It embraces the whole cycle of doctrine respecting the ethical
   and religious relation of man to God, and includes, therefore, the
   doctrines of human freedom, of the primitive state, of the fall, of
   regeneration and conversion, of the eternal purpose of redemption, and
   of the nature and operation of the grace of God. It comes at last to
   the question, whether redemption is chiefly a work of God or of man;
   whether man needs to be born anew, or merely improved. The soul of the
   Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine
   grace. Pelagius starts from the natural man, and works up, by his own
   exertions, to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the
   moral sufficiency of man, and derives the now life and all power for
   good from the creative grace of God. The one system proceeds from the
   liberty of choice to legalistic piety; the other from the bondage of
   sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God. To the former
   Christ is merely a teacher and example, and grace an external auxiliary
   to the development of the native powers of man; to the latter he is
   also Priest and King, and grace a creative principle, which begets,
   nourishes, and consummates a new life. The former makes regeneration
   and conversion a gradual process of the strengthening and perfecting of
   human virtue; the latter makes it a complete transformation, in which
   the old disappears and all becomes new. The one loves to admire the
   dignity and strength of man; the other loses itself in adoration of the
   glory and omnipotence of God. The one flatters natural pride, the other
   is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners. Pelagianism begins with
   self-exaltation and ends with the sense of self-deception and
   impotency. Augustinianism casts man first into the dust of humiliation
   and despair, in order to lift him on the wings of grace to supernatural
   strength, and leads him through the hell of self-knowledge up to the
   heaven of the knowledge of God. The Pelagian system is clear, sober,
   and intelligible, but superficial; the Augustinian sounds the depths of
   knowledge and experience, and renders reverential homage to mystery.
   The former is grounded upon the philosophy of common sense, which is
   indispensable for ordinary life, but has no perception of divine
   things; the latter is grounded upon the philosophy of the regenerate
   reason, which breaks through the limits of nature, and penetrates the
   depths of divine revelation. The former starts with the proposition:
   Intellectus praecedit fidem; the latter with the opposite maxim: Fides
   praecedit intellectum. Both make use of the Scriptures; the one,
   however, conforming them to reason, the other subjecting reason to
   them. Pelagianism has an unmistakable affinity with rationalism, and
   supplies its practical side. To the natural will of the former system
   corresponds the natural reason of the latter; and as the natural will,
   according to Pelagianism, is competent to good, so is the natural
   reason, according to rationalism, competent to the knowledge of the
   truth. All rationalists are Pelagian in their anthropology; but
   Pelagius and Coelestius were not consistent, and declared their
   agreement with the traditional orthodoxy in all other doctrines, though
   without entering into their deeper meaning and connection. Even divine
   mysteries may be believed in a purely external, mechanical way, by
   inheritance from the past, as the history of theology, especially in
   the East, abundantly proves.

   The true solution of the difficult question respecting the relation of
   divine grace to human freedom in the work of conversion, is not found
   in the denial of either factor; for this would either elevate man to
   the dignity of a self-redeemer, or degrade him to an irrational
   machine, and would ultimately issue either in fatalistic pantheism or
   in atheism; but it must be sought in such a reconciliation of the two
   factors as gives full weight both to the sovereignty of God and to the
   responsibility of man, yet assigns a preëminence to the divine agency
   corresponding to the infinite exaltation of the Creator and Redeemer
   above the sinful creature. And although Angustine's solution of the
   problem is not altogether satisfactory, and although in his zeal
   against the Pelagian error he has inclined to the opposite extreme; yet
   in all essential points, he has the Scriptures, especially the Epistles
   of Paul, as well as Christian experience, and the profoundest
   speculation, on his side. Whoever reads the tenth volume of his works,
   which contains his Anti-Pelagian writings in more than fourteen hundred
   folio columns (in the Benedictine edition), will be moved to wonder at
   the extraordinary wealth of thought and experience treasured in them
   for all time; especially if he considers that Augustine, at the
   breaking out of the Pelagian controversy, was already fifty-seven years
   old, and had passed through the Manichaen and Donatist controversies.
   Such giants in theology could only arise in an age when this queen of
   the sciences drew into her service the whole mental activity of the
   time.

   The Pelagian controversy was conducted with as great an expenditure of
   mental energy, and as much of moral and religious earnestness, but with
   less passion and fewer intrigues, than the Trinitarian and
   Christological conflicts in the East. In the foreground stood the
   mighty genius and pure zeal of Augustine, who never violated
   theological dignity, and, though of thoroughly energetic convictions,
   had a heart full of love. Yet even he yielded so far to the intolerant
   spirit of his time as to justify the repression of the Donatist and
   Pelagian errors by civil penalties.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1703]  On the anthropology of the ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers,
   comp. the relevant sections in the larger works on Doctrine History,
   and Wiggers, l.c. vol. l. p. 407 ff.

   [1704]  From sun, and ergon. There are, it may be remarked, different
   forms of synergism. The synergism of Melanchthon subordinates the human
   activity to the divine, and assigns to grace the initiative in the work
   of conversion.

   [1705]  From monon and ergon.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 147. External History of the Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.

   Pelagius [1706] was a simple monk, born about the middle of the fourth
   century in Britain, the extremity of the then civilized world. He was a
   man of clear intellect, mild disposition, learned culture, and spotless
   character; even Augustine. with all his abhorrence of his doctrines,
   repeatedly speaks respectfully of the man. [1707] He studied the Greek
   theology, especially that of the Antiochian school, and early showed
   great zeal for the improvement of himself and of the world. But his
   morality was not so much the rich, deep life of faith, as it was the
   external legalism, the ascetic self-discipline and self-righteousness
   of monkery. It was characteristic, that, even before the controversy,
   he took great offence at the well-known saying of Augustine: "Give what
   thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." [1708] He could not
   conceive, that the power to obey the commandment must come from the
   same source as the commandment itself. Faith, with him, was hardly more
   than a theoretical belief; the main thing in religion was moral action,
   the keeping of the commandments of God by one's own strength. This is
   also shown in the introductory remarks of his letter to Demetrias, a
   noble Roman nun, of the gens Anicia, in which he describes a model
   virgin as a proof of the excellency of human nature: "As often as I
   have to speak concerning moral improvement and the leading of a holy
   life, I am accustomed first to set forth the power and quality of human
   nature, and to show what it can accomplish. [1709] For never are we
   able to enter upon the path of the virtues, unless hope, as companion,
   draws us to them. For every longing after anything dies within us, so
   soon as we despair of attaining that thing."

   In the year 409, Pelagius, already advanced in life, was in Rome, and
   composed a brief commentary on the Epistles of Paul. This commentary,
   which has been preserved among the works of Jerome, displays a clear
   and sober exegetical talent. [1710] He labored quietly and peacefully
   for the improvement of the corrupt morals of Rome, and converted the
   advocate Coelestius, of distinguished, but otherwise unknown birth, to
   his monastic life, and to his views. It was from this man, younger,
   more skilful in argument, more ready for controversy, and more
   rigorously consistent than his teacher, that the controversy took its
   rise. Pelagius was the moral author, Coelestius the intellectual
   author, of the system represented by them. [1711] They did not mean
   actually to found a new system, but believed themselves in accordance
   with Scripture and established doctrine. They were more concerned with
   the ethical side of Christianity than with the dogmatic; but their
   endeavor after moral perfection was based upon certain views of the
   natural power of the will, and these views proved to be in conflict
   with anthropological principles which had been developed in the African
   church for the previous ten years under the influence of Augustine.

   In the year 411, the two friends, thus united in sentiment, left Rome,
   to escape the dreaded Gothic King Alaric, and went to Africa. They
   passed through Hippo, intending to visit Augustine, but found that he
   was just then at Carthage, occupied with the Donatists. Pelagius wrote
   him a very courteous letter, which Augustine answered in a similar
   tone; intimating, however, the importance of holding the true doctrine
   concerning sin. "Pray for me," he said, "that God may really make me
   that which you already take me to be." Pelagius soon proceeded to
   Palestine. Coelestius applied for presbyters' orders in Carthage, the
   very place where he had most reason to expect opposition. This
   inconsiderate step brought on the crisis. He gained many friends, it is
   true, by his talents and his ascetic zeal, but at the same time
   awakened suspicion by his novel opinions.

   The deacon Paulinus of Milan, who was just then in Carthage, and who
   shortly afterwards at the request of Augustine wrote the life of
   Ambrose, warned the bishop Aurelius against Coelestius, and at a
   council held by Aurelius at Carthage in 412, [1712] appeared as his
   accuser. Six or seven errors, he asserted he had found in the writings
   of Coelestius:

   1. Adam was created mortal, and would have died, even if he had not
   sinned.

   2. Adam's fall injured himself alone, not the human race.

   3. Children come into the world in the same condition in which Adam was
   before the fall.

   4. The human race neither dies in consequence of Adam's fall, nor rises
   again in consequence of Christ's resurrection.

   5. Unbaptized children, as well as others, are saved. [1713]

   6. The law, as well as the gospel, leads to the kingdom of heaven.

   7. Even before Christ there were sinless men.

   The principal propositions were the second and third, which are
   intimately connected, and which afterwards became the especial subject
   of controversy.

   Coelestius returned evasive answers. He declared the propositions to be
   speculative questions of the schools, which did not concern the
   substance of the faith, and respecting which different opinions existed
   in the church. He refused to recant the errors charged upon him, and
   the synod excluded him from the communion of the church. He immediately
   went to Ephesus, and was there ordained presbyter.

   Augustine had taken no part personally in these transactions. But as
   the Pelagian doctrines found many adherents even in Africa and in
   Sicily, he wrote several treatises in refutation of them so early as
   412 and 415, expressing himself, however, with respect and forbearance.
   [1714]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1706]  His British name is said to have been Morgan, that is, Of the
   sea, Marigena, in Greek Pelagios.

   [1707]  Comp. the passages where Augustinespeaks of Pelagius, in
   Wiggers, l. c. i. p. 35 f. Yet Augustine, not without reason, accuses
   him of duplicity, on account of his conduct at the synod of Diospolis
   in Palestine. Wiggers (i. p. 40) says of him: "it must be admitted that
   Pelagius was not always sufficiently straightforward; that he did not
   always express his views without ambiguity; that, in fact, he sometimes
   in synods condemned opinions which were manifestly his own. This may
   have arisen, it is true, in great part from his love of peace and the
   slight value which he attached to theoretical opinions."

   [1708]  "Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis," Confess. l. x. c. 29, et
   passim. Augustinehimself relates the above-mentioned fact, De dono
   persev. c. 20 (or § 53, tom. x. f. 851): "Quae mea verba, Pelagius
   Romae, cum a quodam fratre et coëpiscopo meo fuissent eo praesente
   commemorata, ferre non potuit, et contradicens aliquanto commotius pene
   cum eo, qui illa commemoraverat, litigavit."

   [1709]  "Soleo prius humanae naturae vim qualitatemque monstrare, et
   quid efficere possit, ostendere." Ep. ad Demetr. c. 2.

   [1710]  It found its way among the works of Jerome(tom. xi. ed.
   Vallars., and in Migne's edition, tom. xi. f. 643-902) before the
   breaking out of the controversy, but has received doctrinal emendations
   from Cassiodorus, at least in the Epistle to the Romans. The
   confounding of Pelagius with Jeromearose partly from his accommodation
   to the ecclesiastical terminology, partly from his actual agreement
   with the prevailing tendency of monasticism. It is remarkable that both
   wrote an ascetic letter to the nun Demetrias. Comp. Jerome, Ep. 130
   (ed. Vallarsi, and Migne, or 97 in the Bened. ed.) ad Demetriadem de
   servanda Virginitate (written in 414). She had also correspondence with
   Augustine. Semler has published the letters of Augustine, Jerome, and
   Pelagius to Demetrias in a separate form (Halle, 1775). Some have also
   ascribed to Pelagius the ascetic Epistola ad Celantiam matronam de
   ratione pie vivendi, which, like his Ep. ad Demetriadem, has found its
   way into the Epistles of Jerome(Ep. 148 in Vallarsi's ed. tom. i. 1095,
   and in Migne's ed. tom. i. 1204). The monasticism of Pelagius, however,
   was much cooler, more sober, and more philosophical than that of the
   enthusiastic Jerome, inclined as he was to all manner of extravagances.

   [1711]  To this extent Pelagius and Coelestius appear to sustain a
   relation to Pelagianism similar to that which Dr. Pusey and John Henry
   Newman did to Puseyism. Jerome(in his letter to Ctesiphon) says of
   Coelestius, that he was, although the disciple of Pelagius, yet teacher
   and leader of the whole array (magister et totius ductor exercitus).
   Augustinecalls Pelagius more dissembling and crafty, Coelestius more
   frank and open (De peccato orig. c. 12). Marius Mercator ascribes to
   Coelestius an incredibilis loquacitas. But Augustineand Julianof
   Eclanum also mutually reproach each other with a vagabunda loquacitas.

   [1712]  According to Mansi and the common view. The brothers Ballerini
   and Hefele (ii. 91) decide in favor of the year 411. The incomplete
   Acta of the council are found in Mansi, tom. iv. fol. 289 sqq., and in
   the Commonitorium Marii Mercatoris ibidem, f. 293.

   [1713]  Marius Mercator, it is true, does not cite this proposition
   among the others, f. 292, but he brings it up subsequently, f. 296: "In
   ipsa autem accusatione capitulorum, quae eidem Pelagio tum objecta
   sunt, etiam haec continentur, cum aliis execrandis, quae Coelestius
   ejus discipulus sentiebat, id est, infantes etiamsi non baptizentur,
   habere vitam aeternam."

   [1714]  De peccatorum meritis et remissione; De spiritu et liters; De
   natura et gratia; De perfectione justitiae hominis.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 148. The Pelagian Controversy in Palestine.

   Meanwhile, in 414, the controversy broke out in Palestine, where
   Pelagius was residing, and where he had aroused attention by a letter
   to the nun Demetrias. His opinions gained much wider currency there,
   especially among the Origenists; for the Oriental church had not been
   at all affected by the Augustinian views, and accepted the two ideas of
   freedom and grace, without attempting to define their precise relation
   to each other. But just then there happened to be in Palestine two
   Western theologians, Jerome and Orosius; and they instituted opposition
   to Pelagius.

   Jerome, who lived a monk at Bethlehem, was at first decidedly favorable
   to the synergistic theory of the Greek fathers, but at the same time
   agreed with Ambrose and Augustine in the doctrine of the absolutely
   universal corruption of sin. [1715] But from an enthusiastic admirer of
   Origen he had been changed to a bitter enemy. The doctrine of Pelagius
   concerning free will and the moral ability of human nature he
   attributed to the influence of Origen and Rufinus; and he took as a
   personal insult an attack of Pelagius on some of his writings. [1716]
   He therefore wrote against him, though from wounded pride and contempt
   he did not even mention his name; first in a letter answering inquiries
   of a certain Ctesiphon at Rome (415); [1717] then more at length in a
   dialogue of three books against the Pelagians, written towards the end
   of the year 415, and soon after the acquittal of Pelagius by the synod
   of Jerusalem. [1718] Yet in this treatise and elsewhere Jerome himself
   teaches the freedom of the will, and only a conditional predestination
   of divine foreknowledge, and thus, with all his personal bitterness
   against the Pelagians, stands on Semi-Pelagian ground, though Augustine
   eulogizes the dialogue. [1719]

   A young Spanish ecclesiastic, Paul Orosius, was at that time living
   with Jerome for the sake of more extended study, and had been sent to
   him by Augustine with letters relating to the Origenistic and Pelagian
   controversy.

   At a diocesan synod, convoked by the bishop John of Jerusalem in June,
   415, [1720] this Orosius appeared against Pelagius, and gave
   information that a council at Carthage had condemned Coelestius, and
   that Augustine had written against his errors. Pelagius answered with
   evasion and disparagement: "What matters Augustine to me?" Orosius gave
   his opinion, that a man who presumed to speak contumeliously of the
   bishop to whom the whole North African church owed her restoration
   (alluding apparently to the settlement of the Donatist controversies),
   deserved to be excluded from the communion of the whole church. John,
   who was a great admirer of the condemned Origen, and made little
   account of the authority of Augustine, declared: "I am Augustine,"
   [1721] and undertook the defence of the accused. He permitted Pelagius,
   although only a monk and layman, to take his seat among the presbyters.
   [1722] Nor did he find fault with Pelagius' assertion, that man can
   easily keep the commandments of God, and become free from sin, after
   the latter had conceded, in a very indefinite manner, that for this the
   help of God is necessary. Pelagius had the advantage of understanding
   both languages, while John spoke only Greek, Orosius only Latin, and
   the interpreter often translated inaccurately. After much discussion it
   was resolved, that the matter should be laid before the Roman bishop,
   Innocent, since both parties in the controversy belonged to the Western
   church. Meanwhile these should refrain from all further attacks on each
   other.

   A second Palestinian council resulted still more favorably to Pelagius.
   This consisted of fourteen bishops, and was held at Diospolis or Lydda,
   in December of the same year, under the presidency of Eulogius, bishop
   of Caesarea, to judge of an accusation preferred by two banished
   bishops of Gaul, Heros and Lazarus, acting in concert with Jerome.
   [1723] The charges were unskilfully drawn up, and Pelagius was able to
   avail himself of equivocations, and to condemn as folly, though not as
   heresy, the teachings of Coelestius, which were also his own. The
   synod, of which John of Jerusalem was a member, did not go below the
   surface of the question, nor in fact understand it, but acquitted the
   accused of all heresy. Jerome is justified in calling this a "miserable
   synod;" [1724] although Augustine is also warranted in saying: "it was
   not heresy, that was there acquitted, but the man who denied the
   heresy." [1725]

   Jerome's polemical zeal against the Pelagians cost him dear. In the
   beginning of the year 416, a mob of Pelagianizing monks, ecclesiastics,
   and vagabonds broke into his monastery at Bethlehem, maltreated the
   inmates, set the building on fire, and compelled the aged scholar to
   take to flight. Bishop John of Jerusalem let this pass unpunished. No
   wonder that Jerome, even during the last years of his life, in several
   epistles indulges in occasional sallies of anger against Pelagius, whom
   he calls a second Catiline.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1715]  Compare, respecting his relation to Pelagianism, O. Zöckler:
   Hieronymus (1865), p. 310 ff. and p. 420 ff.

   [1716]  Comp. Jerome: Praefat. libri i. in Jeremiam (Opera, ed.
   Vallarsi, tom. iv. 834 sq.), where he speaks very contemptuously of
   Pelagius: "Nuper indoctus calumniator erupit, qui commentarios meos in
   epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios reprehendendos putat." Soon afterwards he
   designates Grunnius, i.e., Rufinus, as his praecursor, and thus
   connects him with the Origenistic heresies. Pelagius had also expressed
   himself unfavorably respecting his translation of the Old Testament
   from the Hebrew.

   [1717]  Epist. 133 ad Ctesiphont. Adv. Pelag. (Opera, i. 1025-1042).

   [1718]  Dialogus c. Pelag. (Opera, tom. ii. 693-806).

   [1719]  Op. imperf. contra Jul. iv. 88, where he says of it: Mira et ut
   talem fidem decebat, venustate composuit. The judgment is just as to
   the form, but too favorable as to the contents of this dialogue. Comp.
   Zöckler, Hieronymus, p. 428.

   [1720]  The Acta of the Conventus Hierosolymitanus, according to a
   report of Orosius, in his Apologia pro libertate arbitrii, cap. 3 and
   4, are found in Mansi, iv. 301 sqq.

   [1721]  "Augustinus ego sum." To this Orosiusreplied not
   infelicitously: "Si Angustini personam sumis, Augustini sententiam
   sequere." Mansi, iv. 308.

   [1722]  Orosiuswas much scandalized by the fact that a bishop should
   order "laicum in consessu presbyterorum, reum haereseos manifestae in
   medio catholicorum sedere."

   [1723]  The scattered accounts of the Concilium Diospolitanum are
   collected in Mansi, tom. iv. 311 sqq. Comp. Hefele, ii. p. 95 ff.

   [1724]  "Quidquid in illa miserabili synodo Diospolitana dixisse se
   denegat, in hoc opere confitetur," he wrote, a.d.419, in a letter to
   Augustine(Ep. 143, ed. Vallars. tom. i. 1067). Comp. Mansi, iv. 315.

   [1725]  Comp. Augustine, De gestis Pelagii, c. 1 sqq. (tom. x. fol. 192
   sqq.). Pope innocent I. (402-417) wrote a consoling letter to Jerome,
   and a letter of reproof to John of Jerusalem for his inaction. Epp. 136
   and 137 in Jerome's Epistles.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 149. Position of the Roman Church. Condemnation of Pelagianism.

   The question took another turn when it was brought before the Roman
   see. Two North African synods, in 416, one at Carthage and one at
   Mileve (now Mela), again condemned the Pelagian error, and communicated
   their sentence to pope Innocent. [1726] A third and more confidential
   letter was addressed to him by five North African bishops, of whom
   Augustine was one. [1727] Pelagius also sent him a letter and a
   confession of faith, which, however, were not received in due time.

   Innocent understood both the controversy and the interests of the Roman
   see. He commended the Africans for having addressed themselves to the
   church of St. Peter, before which it was seemly that all the affairs of
   Christendom should be brought; he expressed his full agreement with the
   condemnation of Pelagius, Coelestius, and their adherents; but he
   refrained from giving judgment respecting the synod of Diospolis.
   [1728]

   But soon afterwards (in 417) Innocent died, and was succeeded by
   Zosimus, who was apparently of Oriental extraction (417-418). [1729] At
   this juncture, a letter from Pelagius to Innocent was received, in
   which he complained of having suffered wrong, and gave assurance of his
   orthodoxy. Coelestius appeared personally in Rome, and succeeded by his
   written and oral explanations in satisfying Zosimus. He, like Pelagius,
   demonstrated with great fulness his orthodoxy on points not at all in
   question, represented the actually controverted points as unimportant
   questions of the schools, and professed himself ready, if in error, to
   be corrected by the judgment of the Roman bishop.

   Zosimus, who evidently had no independent theological opinion whatever,
   now issued (417) to the North African bishops an encyclical letter
   accompanied by the documentary evidence, censuring them for not having
   investigated the matter more thoroughly, and for having aspired, in
   foolish, overcurious controversies, to know more than the Holy
   Scriptures. At the same time he bore emphatic testimony to the
   orthodoxy of Pelagius and Coelestius, and described their chief
   opponents, Heros and Lazarus, as worthless characters, whom he had
   visited with excommunication and deposition. They in Rome, he says,
   could hardly refrain from tears, that such men, who so often mentioned
   the gratia Dei and the adjutorium divinum, should have been condemned
   as heretics. Finally he entreated the bishops to submit themselves to
   the authority of the Roman see. [1730]

   This temporary favor of the bishop of Rome towards the Pelagian heresy
   is a significant presage of the indulgence of later popes for
   Pelagianizing tendencies, and of the papal condemnation of Jansenism.

   The Africans were too sure of their cause, to yield submission to so
   weak a judgment, which, moreover, was in manifest conflict with that of
   Innocent. In a council at Carthage, in 417 or 418, they protested,
   respectfully but decidedly, against the decision of Zosimus, and gave
   him to understand that he was allowing himself to be greatly deceived
   by the indefinite explanations of Coelestius. In a general African
   council held at Carthage in 418, the bishops, over two hundred in
   number, defined their opposition to the Pelagian errors, in eight (or
   nine) Canons, which are entirely conformable to the Augustinian view.
   [1731] They are in the following tenor:

   1. Whosoever says, that Adam was created mortal, and would, even
   without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

   2. Whoever rejects infant baptism, or denies original sin in children,
   so that the baptismal formula, "for the remission of sins," would have
   to be taken not in a strict, but in a loose sense, let him be anathema.

   3. Whoever says, that in the kingdom of heaven, or elsewhere, there is
   a certain middle place, where children dying without baptism live happy
   (beate vivant), while yet without baptism they cannot enter into the
   kingdom of heaven, i.e., into eternal life, let him be anathema. [1732]

   The fourth canon condemns the doctrine that the justifying grace of God
   merely effects the forgiveness of sins already committed; and the
   remaining canons condemn other superficial views of the grace of God
   and the sinfulness of man.

   At the same time the Africans succeeded in procuring from the emperor
   Honorius edicts against the Pelagians.

   These things produced a change in the opinions of Zosimus, and about
   the middle of the year 418, he issued an encyclical letter to all the
   bishops of both East and West, pronouncing the anathema upon Pelagius
   and Coelestius (who had meanwhile left Rome), and declaring his
   concurrence with the decisions of the council of Carthage in the
   doctrines of the corruption of human nature, of baptism, and of grace.
   Whoever refused to subscribe the encyclical, was to be deposed,
   banished from his church, and deprived of his property. [1733]

   Eighteen bishops of Italy refused to subscribe, and were deposed.
   Several of these afterwards recanted, and were restored.

   The most distinguished one of them, however, the bishop Julian, of
   Eclanum, a small place near Capua in Campania, remained steadfast till
   his death, and in banishment vindicated his principles with great
   ability and zeal against Augustine, to whom he attributed all the
   misfortunes of his party, and who elaborately confuted him. [1734]
   Julian was the most learned, the most acute, and the most systematic of
   the Pelagians, and the most formidable opponent of Augustine; deserving
   respect for his talents, his uprightness of life, and his immovable
   fidelity to his convictions, but unquestionably censurable for
   excessive passion and overbearing pride. [1735]

   Julian, Coelestius, and other leaders of the exiled Pelagians, were
   hospitably received in Constantinople, in 429, by the patriarch
   Nestorius, who sympathized with their doctrine of the moral competency
   of the will, though not with their denial of original sin, and who
   interceded for them with the emperor and with pope Celestine, but in
   vain. Theodosius, instructed by Marius Mercator in the merits of the
   case, commanded the heretics to leave the capital (429). Nestorius, in
   a still extant letter to Coelestius, [1736] accords to him the highest
   titles of honor, and comforts him with the examples of John the Baptist
   and the persecuted apostles. Theodore of Mopsuestia ( 428), the author
   of the Nestorian Christology, wrote in 419 a book against the
   Augustinian anthropology, of which fragments only are left. [1737]

   Of the subsequent life of Pelagius and Coelestius we have no account.
   The time and place of their death are entirely unknown. Julian is said
   to have ended his life a schoolmaster in Sicily, a.d. 450, after having
   sacrificed all his property for the poor during a famine.

   Pelagianism was thus, as early as about the year 430, externally
   vanquished. It never formed an ecclesiastical sect, but simply a
   theological school. It continued to have individual adherents in Italy
   till towards the middle of the fifth century, so that the Roman bishop,
   Leo the Great, found himself obliged to enjoin on the bishops by no
   means to receive any Pelagian to the communion of the church without an
   express recantation.

   At the third ecumenical council in Ephesus, a.d. 431 (the year after
   Augustine's death), Pelagius (or more properly Coelestius) was put in
   the same category with Nestorius. And indeed there is a certain
   affinity between them: both favor an abstract separation of the divine
   and the human, the one in the person of Christ, the other in the work
   of conversion, forbidding all organic unity of life. According to the
   epistle of the council to pope Celestine, the Western Acta against the
   Pelagians were read at Ephesus and approved, but we do not know in
   which session. We are also ignorant of the discussions attending this
   act. In the canons, Coelestius, it is true, is twice condemned together
   with Nestorius, but without statement of his teachings. [1738]

   The position of the Greek church upon this question is only negative;
   she has in name condemned Pelagianism, but has never received the
   positive doctrines of Augustine. She continued to teach synergistic or
   Semi-Pelagian views, without, however, entering into a deeper
   investigation of the relation of human freedom to divine grace. [1739]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1726]  See the proceedings of the Concilium Carthaginense in Mansi,
   iv. 321 sqq., and of the Concilium Milevitanurn, ibid. f. 326 sqq.

   [1727]  Mansi, iv. 337 sqq.

   [1728]  The answers of Innocent are found in Mansi, tom. iii. f. 1071
   sqq.

   [1729]  The notices of his life, as well as the Epistolae and Decreta
   Zosimi papae, are collected in Mansi, iv. 345 sqq.

   [1730]  See the two epistles of Zosimus ad Africanos episcopos, in
   Mansi, iv. 350 and 353.

   [1731]  It is the 16th Carthaginian synod. Mansi gives the canons in
   full, tom. iii. 810-823 (Comp. iv. 377). So also Wiggers, i. 214 ff.
   Hefele, ii. pp. 102-106, gives only extracts of them.

   [1732]  It is significant, that the third canon, which denies the
   salvation of unbaptized children, is of doubtful authenticity, and is
   wanting in Isidore and Dionysius. Hence the difference in the number of
   the canons against the Pelagians, as to whether there are 8 or 9.

   [1733]  Epistola tractoria, or tractatoria, of which only some
   fragments are extant. Comp. Mansi, iv. 370. This letter was written
   after and not before the African council of 418 and the promulgation of
   the sacrum rescriptum of Honorius against the Pelagians, as Tillemont
   (xiii. 738) and the Benedictines (in the Preface to the 10th volume of
   the Opera August. § 18) have proved, in opposition to Baronius, Noris,
   and Garnier.

   [1734]  In two large works: Contra Julianum, libri vi. (Opera, tom. x.
   f. 497-711), and in the Opus imperfectum contra secundam Juliani
   responsionem, in six books (tom. x. P. ii. f. 874-1386), before
   completing which he died (a.d.430).

   [1735]  Gennadius, in his Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiastics, calls
   Julianof Eclanum "vir acer ingenio, in divinis scripturis doctus,
   Graeca et Latina lingua scholasticus." By Augustine, however, in the
   Opus imperf. contra Jul. l. iv. 50 (Opera, x. P. ii. fol. 1163), he is
   called "in disputatione loquacissimus, in contentione calumniosissimus,
   in professions fallacissimus," because he maligned the Catholics, while
   giving himself out for a Catholic. He was married.

   [1736] In Marius Mercator, in a Latin translation, ed. Garnier-Migne,
   p. 182.

   [1737]  In Photius, Bibl. Cod. 177, and in the Latin translation of
   Marius Mercator, also in the works of Jerome, tom. ii. 807-814 (ed.
   Vall.). The book was written contra Hiramum, i.e., Hieronymum, and was
   entitled: Pros tous legontas phusei kai ou gnome ptaiein tous
   anthropous logoi pente, against those who say that men sin by nature,
   and not by free will.

   [1738]  Can. i. and Can. iv. The latter reads: "If clergymen fall away
   and either secretly or publicly hold with Nestorius or Coelestius, the
   synod decrees that they also be deposed." Dr. Shedd (ii. 191) observes
   with justice: "The condemnation of Pelagianism which was finally passed
   by the council of Ephesus, seems to have been owing more to a supposed
   connection of the views of Pelagius with those of Nestorius, than to a
   clear and conscientious conviction that his system was contrary to
   Scripture and the Christian experience."

   [1739]  Comp. Münscher, Dogmengeschichte, vol. iv. 238, and Neander,
   Dogmengeschichte, vol. i. p. 412.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 150. The Pelagian System: Primitive State and Freedom of Man; the
   Fall.

   The peculiar anthropological doctrines, which Pelagius clearly
   apprehended and put in actual practice, which Coelestius dialectically
   developed, and bishop Julian most acutely defended, stand in close
   logical connection with each other, although they were not propounded
   in systematic form. They commend themselves at first sight by their
   simplicity, clearness, and plausibility, and faithfully express the
   superficial, self-satisfied morality of the natural man. They proceed
   from a merely empirical view of human nature, which, instead of going
   to the source of moral life, stops with its manifestations, and regards
   every person, and every act of the will, as standing by itself, in no
   organic connection with a great whole.

   We may arrange the several doctrines of this system according to the
   great stages of the moral history of mankind.

   I. The Primitive State of mankind, and the doctrine of Freedom.

   The doctrine of the primitive state of man holds a subordinate position
   in the system of Pelagius, but the doctrine of freedom is central;
   because in his view the primitive state substantially coincides with
   the present, while freedom is the characteristic prerogative of man, as
   a moral being, in all stages of his development.

   Adam, he taught, was created by God sinless, and entirely competent to
   all good, with an immortal spirit and a mortal body. He was endowed
   with reason and free will. With his reason he was to have dominion over
   irrational creatures; with his free will he was to serve God. Freedom
   is the supreme good, the honor and glory of man, the bonum naturae,
   that cannot be lost. It is the sole basis of the ethical relation of
   man to God, who would have no unwilling service. It consists according
   to Pelagius, essentially in the liberum arbitrium, or the possibilitas
   boni et mali; the freedom of choice, and the absolutely equal ability
   at every moment to do good or evil. [1740] The ability to do evil
   belongs necessarily to freedom, because we cannot will good without at
   the same time being able to will evil. Without this power of contrary
   choice, the choice of good itself would lose its freedom, and therefore
   its moral value. Man is not a free, self-determining moral subject,
   until good and evil, life and death, have been given into his hand.
   [1741]

   This is the only conception of freedom which Pelagius has, and to this
   he and his followers continually revert. He views freedom in its form
   alone, and in its first stage, and there fixes and leaves it, in
   perpetual equipoise between good and evil, ready at any moment to turn
   either way. It is without past or future; absolutely independent of
   everything without or within; a vacuum, which may make itself a plenum,
   and then becomes a vacuum again; a perpetual tabula rasa, upon which
   man can write whatsoever he pleases; a restless choice, which, after
   every decision, reverts to indecision and oscillation. The human will
   is, as it were, the eternal Hercules at the cross-road, who takes first
   a step to the right, then a step to the left, and ever returns to his
   former position. Pelagius knows only the antithesis of free choice and
   constraint; no stages of development, no transitions. He isolates the
   will from its acts, and the acts from each other, and overlooks the
   organic connection between habit and act. Human liberty, like every
   other spiritual power, has its development; it must advance beyond its
   equilibrium, beyond the mere ability to sin or not to sin, and decide
   for the one or the other. When the will decides, it so far loses its
   indifference, and the oftener it acts, the more does it become fixed;
   good or evil becomes its habit, its second nature; and the will either
   becomes truly free by deciding for virtue, and by practising virtue, or
   it becomes the slave of vice. [1742] "Whosoever committeth sin, is the
   servant of sin." Goodness is its own reward, and wickedness is its own
   punishment. Liberty of choice is not a power, but a weakness, or rather
   a crude energy, waiting to assume some positive form, to reject evil
   and commit itself to good, and to become a moral self-control, in which
   the choice of evil, as in Christ, is a moral, though not a physical,
   impossibility. Its impulse towards exercise is also an impulse towards
   self-annihilation, or at least towards self-limitation. The right use
   of the freedom of choice leads to a state of holiness; the abuse of it,
   to a state of bondage under sin. The state of the will is affected by
   its acts, and settles towards a permanent character of good or evil.
   Every act goes to form a moral state or habit; and habit is in turn the
   parent of new acts. Perfect freedom is one with moral necessity, in
   which man no longer can do evil because he will not do it, and must do
   good because he wills to do it; in which the finite will is united with
   the divine in joyful obedience, and raised above the possibility of
   apostasy. This is the blessed freedom of the children of God in the
   state of glory. There is, indeed, a subordinate sphere of natural
   virtue and civil justice, in which even fallen man retains a certain
   freedom of choice, and is the artificer of his own character. But as
   respects his relation to God, he is in a state of alienation from God,
   and of bondage under sin; and from this he cannot rise by his own
   strength, by a bare resolution of his will, but only by a regenerating
   act of grace. received in humility and faith, and setting him free to
   practise Christian virtue. Then, when born again from above, the will
   of the new man co-operates with the grace of God, in the growth of the
   Christian life. [1743]

   Physical death Pelagius regarded as a law of nature, which would have
   prevailed even without sin. [1744] The passages of Scripture which
   represent death as the consequence of sin, he referred to moral
   corruption or eternal damnation. [1745] Yet be conceded that Adam, if
   he had not sinned, might by a special privilege have been exempted from
   death.

   II. The Fall of Adam and its Consequences.

   Pelagius, destitute of all idea of the organic wholeness of the race or
   of human nature, viewed Adam merely as an isolated individual; he gave
   him no representative place, and therefore his acts no bearing beyond
   himself.

   In his view, the sin of the first man consisted in a single, isolated
   act of disobedience to the divine command. Julian compares it to the
   insignificant offence of a child, which allows itself to be misled by
   some sensual bait, but afterwards repents its fault. "Rude,
   inexperienced, thoughtless, having not yet learned to fear, nor seen an
   example of virtue," [1746] Adam allowed himself to be enticed by the
   pleasant look of the forbidden fruit, and to be determined by the
   persuasion of the woman. This single and excusable act of transgression
   brought no consequences, either to the soul or the body of Adam, still
   less to his posterity who all stand or fall for themselves.

   There is, therefore, according to this system, no original sin, and no
   hereditary guilt. Pelagius merely conceded, that Adam, by his
   disobedience, set a bad example, which exerts a more or less injurious
   influence upon his posterity. In this view he condemned at the synod of
   Diospolis (415) the assertion of Coelestius, that Adam's sin injured
   himself alone, not the human race. [1747] He was also inclined to admit
   an increasing corruption of mankind, though he ascribed it solely to
   the habit of evil, which grows in power the longer it works and the
   farther it spreads. [1748] Sin, however, is not born with man; it is
   not a product of nature, but of the will. [1749] Man is born both
   without virtue and without vice, but with the capacity for either.
   [1750] The universality of sin must be ascribed to the power of evil
   example and evil custom.

   And there are exceptions to it. The "all" in Rom. v. 12 is to be taken
   relatively for the majority. Even before Christ there were men who
   lived free from sin, such as righteous Abel, Abraham, Isaac, the Virgin
   Mary, and many others. [1751] From the silence of the Scriptures
   respecting the sins of many righteous men, he inferred that such men
   were without sin. [1752] In reference to Mary, Pelagius is nearer the
   present Roman Catholic view than Augustine, who exempts her only from
   actual sin, not from original. [1753] Jerome, with all his reverence
   for the blessed Virgin, does not even make this exception but says,
   without qualification, that every creature is under the power of sin
   and in need of the mercy of God. [1754]

   With original sin, of course, hereditary guilt also disappears; and
   even apart from this connection, Pelagius views it as irreconcilable
   with the justice of God. From this position a necessary deduction is
   the salvation of unbaptized infants. Pelagius, however, made a
   distinction between vita aeterna or a lower degree of salvation, and
   the regnum coelorum of the baptized saints; and he affirmed the
   necessity of baptism for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. [1755]

   In this doctrine of the fall we meet with the same disintegrating view
   of humanity as before. Adam is isolated from his posterity; his
   disobedience is disjoined from other sins. He is simply an individual,
   like any other man, not the representative of the whole race. There are
   no creative starting-points; every man begins history anew. In this
   system Paul's exhibitions of Adam and Christ as the representative
   ancestors of mankind have no meaning. If the act of the former has
   merely an individual significance, so also has that of the latter. If
   the sin of Adam cannot be imputed, neither can the merit of Christ. In
   both cases there is nothing left but the idea of example, the influence
   of which depends solely upon our own free will. But there is an
   undeniable solidarity between the sin of the first man and that of his
   posterity.

   In like manner sin is here regarded almost exclusively as an isolated
   act of the will, while yet there is also such a thing as sinfulness;
   there are sinful states and sinful habits, which are consummated and
   strengthened by sins of act, and which in turn give birth to other sins
   of act.

   There is a deep truth in the couplet of Schiller, which can easily be
   divested of its fatalistic intent:


   "This is the very curse of evil deed,

   That of new evil it becomes the seed." [1756]

   Finally, the essence and root of sin is not sensuality, as Pelagius was
   inclined to assume (though he did not express himself very definitely
   on this point), but self-seeking, including pride and sensuality as the
   two main forms of sin. The sin of Satan was a pride that aimed at
   equality with God, rebellion against God; and in this the fall of Adam
   began, and was inwardly consummated before he ate of the forbidden
   fruit.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1740]  De gratia Christi et de pecc. origin. c. 18 (§ 19, tom. x. fol.
   238) where Augustinecites the following passage from the treatise of
   Pelagius, De libero arbitrio: "Habemus possibilitatem utriusque partis
   a Deo insitam, velut quamdam, ut ita dicam, radicem fructiferam et
   fecundam, quae ex voluntate hominis diversa gignat et pariat, et quae
   possit ad proprii cultoris arbitrium, vel nitere flore virtutum, vel
   sentibus horrere vitiorum." Against this Augustinecites the declaration
   of our Lord, Matt. vii. 18, that "a good tree cannot bear evil fruit,
   nor a corrupt tree good fruit," that therefore there cannot be "una
   eademque radix bonortim et malorum."

   [1741]  Ep. ad Demet. cap. 3: "In hoc enim gemini itineris ne, in hoc
   utriusque libertate partis, rationabilis animae decus positum est.
   Hinc, inquam, totus naturae nostrae honor consistit, hinc dignitas,
   hinc denique optimi quique laudem merentur, hinc praemium. Nec esset
   omnino virtus ulla in bono perseverantis, si is ad malum transire non
   potuisset. Volens namque Deus rationabilem creaturam voluntarii boni
   munere [al. munire] et liberi arbitrii potestate donare, utriusque
   partis possibilitatem homini inserendo, proprium ejus fecit esse quod
   velit, ut boni ac mali capax, naturaliter utrumque posset, et ad
   alterutrum voluntatem deflecteret. Neque enim aliter spontaneum habere
   poterat bonum, nisi aeque etiam ea creatura malum habere potusit.
   Utrumque nos posse voluit optimus Creator, sed unum facere, bonum
   scilicet, quod et imperavit; malique facultatem ad hoc tantum dedit, ut
   voluntatem ejus ex nostra voluntate faceremus. Quod ut ita sit, hoc
   quoque ipsum, quia etiam mala facere possumus, bonum est. Donum,
   inquam, quia boni partem meliorem facit. Facit enim ipsam voluntariam
   sui juris, non necessitate devinctam, sed judicio liberam."

   [1742]  Pelagius himself, it must be admitted, recognized to some
   extent the power of habit and its effect upon the will (Ep. ad Demetr.
   c. 8); but Coelestius and Juliancarried out his idea of the freedom of
   choice more consistently to the conception of a purely qualitative or
   formal power which admits of no growth or change by actual exercise,
   but remains always the same. Comp. Niedner (in the posthumous edition
   of his Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Berlin, 1866, p. 345 f.), who
   justly remarks, in opposition to Baur's defense of the Pelagian
   conception of freedom: "Freedom in its first stage, as the power of
   choice, is a moral (as well as a natural) faculty, and hence capable of
   development either by way of deterioration into a sinful inclination,
   or by rising to a higher form of freedom. This is the point which
   Coelestius and Julianignored: they attached too little weight to the
   use of freedom."

   [1743]  Comp. the thorough and acute criticism of the Pelagian
   conception of freedom by Julius Müller, Die christliche Lehre von der
   Sünde, Bd. ii. p. 49 ff. (3d ed. 1849).

   [1744]  Coelestius in Marius Mercator. Common. ii. p. 133: "Adam
   mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moriturus
   fuisset."

   [1745] The words of God to Adam, Gen. iii. 19: "Dust thou art, and unto
   dust shalt thou return," Julianinterpreted not as a curse, but as a
   consolation, and as an argument for the natural mortality of Adam, by
   straining the "Dust thou art." See August. Opus imperfectum contra
   Julian. l. vi. cap. 27 (x. fol. 1346 sqq.).

   [1746]  "Rudis, imperitus, incautus, sine experimento timoris, sine
   exemplo justitiae."

   [1747]  "Adae peccatum ipsi soli obfuisse, et non generi humano; et
   infantes qui nascuntur, in eo statu esse, in quo fuit Adam ante
   praevaricationem." In Angustine's De pecc. orig. c. 13 (f. 258).

   [1748]  Ep. ad Demet. cap. 8: "Longa consuetudo vitiorum, quae nos
   infecit a parvo paulatimque per multos corrupit annos, et ita postea
   obligatos sibi et addictos tenet, ut vim quodammodo videatur habere
   natura." He also says of consuetudo, that it "aut vitia aut virtutes
   alit."

   [1749]  Coelestius, Symb. fragm. i.: In remissionem autem peccatorum
   baptizandos infantes non idcireo diximus, ut peccatum ex traduce [or,
   peccatum naturm, pecca. tum naturale] firmare videamur, quod longe a
   catholico sensu alienum est; quia peccatum non cum homine nascitur,
   quod postmodum exercetur ab homine quia non naturm delictum, sed
   voluntatis ease demonstrator.

   [1750]  Pelagius, in the first book of the Pro libero arbitrio, cited
   in Augustine's De pecc. orig. cap. 13 (§ 14, tom. x. f. 258): "Omne
   bonum ac malum, quo vel laudabiles vel vituperabiles sumus, non
   nobiscum oritur, sed agitur a nobis: capaces enim utriusque rei, non
   pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute, ita et sine vitio procreamur; atque
   ante actionem propriae voluntatis id solum in homine eat, quod Deus
   condidit." It is not, however, very congruous with this, that in
   another place he speaks of a natural or inborn holiness. Ad Demet. c.
   4: "Est in animis nostris naturalis quaedam, ut its dixerim,
   sanctitas."

   [1751]  Comp. Pelagius, Com. in Rom. v. 12, and in August. De natum et
   gratia, cap. 36 (§ 42, Opera, tom. x. fol. 144): "Deinde commemorat
   [Pelagius] eos, qui non modo non peccasse, verum etiam juste vixisse
   referuntur, Abel, Enoch, Melchisedech, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesu
   Nove, Phineas, Samuel, Nathan, Elias, Joseph, Elizaeus, Micheas,
   Daniel, Ananias, Agarias, Meisael, Ezechiel, Mardochaeus, Simeon,
   Joseph, cui despondata erat virgo Maria, Johannes. Adjungit etiam
   feminas, Debboram, Annam, Samuelis matrem, Judith, Esther, alteram
   Annam faliam Phanuel, Elizabeth, ipsam etiam Domini ac Salvatoris
   nostri matrem, quam dicit sine peccato confiteri necesse ease pietati."

   [1752]  "De illis, quorum justitiae meminit [Scriptura sacra] et
   peccatorum sine dubio meminisset, si qua eos peccasse sensisset." In
   Aug. De Nat. et grat. c. 37 (§ 43; tom. x. fol. 145).

   [1753]  In the passage cited, Augustineagrees with Pelagius in
   reference to Mary 'propter honorem Domini,' but only as respects actual
   sin, of which the connection shows him to be speaking; for in other
   passages he affirms the conception of Mary in sin. Comp. Enarratio in
   Psalmum xxxiv. vs. 13 (ed. Migne, tom. iv. 335): "Maria ex Adam mortua
   propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex
   Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata." De Genesi ad literam, lib.
   x. c. 18 (§ 32), where he discusses the origin of Christ's soul, and
   says: "Quid incoinquinatius illo utero Virginia, cujus caro etiamsi de
   peccati propagine venit, non tamen de peccati propagine concepit ...? "
   See above, § 80, p. 418.

   [1754]  Adv. Pelag. l. ii. c. 4 (tom. ii. 744, ed. Vallarsi):
   "Anamarteton, id est sine peccato esse [hominem posse] nego, id enim
   soli Deo competit, omnisque creatura peccato subjacet, et indiget
   misericordia Dei, dicente Scriptura: Misericordia Domini plena est
   terra."

   [1755]  August. De peccatorum meritis et remissione, lib. i. c. 21 (§
   30, tom. x. f. 17); De haeresibus, cap. 88.

   [1756] 765  "Das eben ist der Fluch der bösen That,
   Dass sie, fortzeugend, immer Böses muss gebären."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 151. The Pelagian System Continued: Doctrine, of Human Ability and
   Divine Grace.

   III. The Present Moral Condition of man is, according to the Pelagian
   system, in all respects the same as that of Adam before the fall. Every
   child is born with the same moral powers and capabilities with which
   the first man was created by God. For the freedom of choice, as we have
   already seen, is not lost by abuse, and is altogether the same in
   heathens, Jews, and Christians, except that in Christians it is aided
   by grace. [1757] Pelagius was a creationist, holding that the body
   alone is derived from the parents, and that every soul is created
   directly by God, and is therefore sinless. The sin of the father,
   inasmuch as it consists in isolated acts of will, and does not inhere
   in the nature, has no influence upon the child. The only difference is,
   that, in the first place, Adam's posterity are born children, and not,
   like him, created full-grown; and secondly, they have before them the
   bad example of his disobedience, which tempts them more or less to
   imitation, and to the influence of which by far the most--but not
   all--succumb.

   Julian often appeals to the virtues of the heathen, such as valor,
   chastity, and temperance, in proof of the natural goodness of human
   nature.

   He looked at the matter of moral action as such, and judged it
   accordingly. "If the chastity of the heathen," he objects to
   Augustine's view of the corrupt nature of heathen virtue, "were no
   chastity, then it might be said with the same propriety that the bodies
   of unbelievers are no bodies; that the eyes of the heathen could not
   see; that grain which grew in their fields was no grain."

   Augustine justly ascribed the value of a moral act to the inward
   disposition or the direction of the will, and judged it from the unity
   of the whole life and according to the standard of love to God, which
   is the soul of all true virtue, and is bestowed upon us only through
   grace. He did not deny altogether the existence of natural virtues,
   such as moderation, lenity, benevolence, generosity, which proceed from
   the Creator, and also constitute a certain merit among men; but he drew
   a broad line of distinction between them and the specific Christian
   graces, which alone are good in the proper sense of the word, and alone
   have value before God.

   The Holy Scriptures, history, and Christian experience, by no means
   warrant such a favorable view of the natural moral condition of man as
   the Pelagian system teaches. On the contrary, they draw a most gloomy
   picture of fearful corruption and universal inclination to all evil,
   which can only be overcome by the intervention of divine grace. Yet
   Augustine also touches an extreme, when, on a false application of the
   passage of St. Paul: "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin" (Rom. xiv.
   23), he ascribes all the virtues of the heathen to ambition and love of
   honor, and so stigmatizes them as vices. [1758] And in fact he is in
   this inconsistent with himself. For, according to his view, the nature
   which God created, remains, as to its substance, good; the divine image
   is not wholly lost, but only defaced; and even man's sorrow in his loss
   reveals a remaining trace of good. [1759]

   Pelagius distinguishes three elements in the idea of good: . Power,
   will, and act (posse, velle, and esse). The first appertains to man's
   nature, the second to his free will, the third to his conduct. The
   power or ability to do good, the ethical constitution, is grace, and
   comes therefore from God, as an original endowment of the nature of
   man. It is the condition of volition and action, though it does not
   necessarily produce them. Willing and acting belong exclusively to man
   himself. [1760] The power of speech, of thought, of sight, is God's,
   gift; but whether we shall really think, speak, or see, and whether we
   shall think, speak, or see well or ill, depends upon ourselves. [1761]

   Here the nature of man is mechanically sundered from his will and act;
   and the one is referred exclusively to God, the others to man. Moral
   ability does not exist over and above the will and its acts, but in
   them, and is increased by exercise; and thus its growth depends upon
   man himself. On the other hand, the divine help is indispensable even
   to the willing and doing of good; for God works in us both to will and
   to do. [1762] The Pelagian system is founded unconsciously upon the
   deistic conception of the world as a clock, made and wound up by God,
   and then running of itself, and needing at most some subsequent
   repairs. God, in this system, is not the omnipresent and everywhere
   working Upholder and Governor of the world, in whom the creation lives
   and moves and has its being, but a more or less passive spectator of
   the operation of the universe. [1763] Jerome therefore fairly accuses
   the Pelagians (without naming them) of denying the absolute dependence
   of man on God, and cites against them the declaration of Christ, John
   v. 17, concerning the uninterrupted activity of God. [1764]

   IV. The doctrine of the Grace of God.

   The sufficiency of the natural reason and will of man would seem to
   make supernatural revelation and grace superfluous. But this Pelagius
   does not admit. Besides the natural grace, as we may call his
   concreated ability, he assumes also a supernatural grace, which through
   revelation enlightens the understanding, and assists man to will and to
   do what is good. [1765] This grace confers the negative benefit of the
   forgiveness of past sins, or justification, which Pelagius understands
   in the Protestant sense of declaring righteous, and not (like
   Augustine) in the Catholic sense of making righteous; [1766]


   Ihm ziemt's, die Welt im Innern zu bewegen,

   Natur in sich, sich in Natur zu hegen,

   So dass, was in ihm lebt und webt und ist,

   Nie seine Kraft, nie seinen Geist vermisst."

   "What were a God who only from without

   Upon his finger whirled the universe about?

   'Tis his within itself to move the creature;

   Nature in him to warm, himself in nature;

   So that what in him lives and moves and is,

   Shall ever feel some living breath of his."

   and the positive benefit of a strengthening of the will by the power of
   instruction and example. As we have been followers of Adam in sin, so
   should we become imitators of Christ in virtue. "In those not
   Christians," says Pelagius, "good exists in a condition of nakedness
   and helplessness; but in Christians it acquires vigor through the
   assistance of Christ." [1767] He distinguishes different stages of
   development in grace corresponding to the increasing corruption of
   mankind. At first, he says, men lived righteous by nature (justitia per
   naturam), then righteous under the law (justitia sub lege), and finally
   righteous under grace (justitia gratiae), or the gospel. [1768] When
   the inner law, or the conscience, no longer sufficed, the outward or
   Mosaic law came in; and when this failed, through the overmastering
   habit of sinning, it had to be assisted by the view and imitation of
   the virtue of Christ, as set forth in his example. [1769] Julian of
   Eclanum also makes kinds and degrees of the grace of God. The first
   gift of grace is our creation out of nothing; the second, our rational
   soul; the third, the written law; the fourth, the gospel, with all its
   benefits. In the gift of the Son of God grace is completed. [1770]

   Grace is therefore a useful external help (adjutorium) to the
   development of the powers of nature, but is not absolutely necessary.
   Coelestius laid down the proposition, that grace is not given for
   single acts. [1771] Pelagius, it is true, condemned those who deny that
   the grace of God in Christ is necessary for every moment and every act;
   but this point was a concession wrung from him in the controversy, and
   does not follow logically from his premises. [1772]

   Grace moreover, according to Pelagius, is intended for all men (not, as
   Augustine taught, for the elect few only), but it must first be
   deserved. This, however, really destroys its freedom. [1773] "The
   heathen," he says, "are liable to judgment and damnation, because they,
   notwithstanding their free will, by which they are able to attain unto
   faith and to deserve God's grace, make an evil use of the freedom
   bestowed upon them; Christians, on the other hand, are worthy of
   reward, because they through good use of freedom deserve the grace of
   God, and keep his commandments." [1774]

   Pelagianism, therefore, extends the idea of grace too far, making it
   include human nature itself and the Mosaic law; while, on the other
   hand, it unduly restricts the specifically Christian grace to the force
   of instruction and example. Christ is indeed the Supreme Teacher, and
   the Perfect Example, but He is also High-priest and King, and the
   Author of a new spiritual creation. Had He been merely a teacher, He
   would not have been specifically distinct from Moses and Socrates, and
   could not have redeemed mankind from the guilt and bondage of sin.
   Moreover, He does not merely influence believers from without, but
   lives and works in them through the Holy Ghost, as the principle of
   their spiritual life. Hence Augustine's wish for his opponent: "Would
   that Pelagius might confess that grace which not merely promises us the
   excellence of future glory, but also brings forth in us the faith and
   hope of it; a grace, which not merely admonishes to all good, but also
   from within inclines us thereto; not merely reveals wisdom, but also
   inspires us with the love of wisdom." [1775] This superficial
   conception of grace is inevitable, with the Pelagian conception of sin.
   If human nature is uncorrupted, and the natural will competent to all
   good, we need no Redeemer to create in us a new will and a new life,
   but merely an improver and ennobler; and salvation is essentially the
   work of man. The Pelagian system has really no place for the ideas of
   redemption, atonement, regeneration, and new creation. It substitutes
   for them our own moral effort to perfect our natural powers, and the
   mere addition of the grace of God as a valuable aid and support. It was
   only by a happy inconsistency, that Pelagius and his adherents
   traditionally held to the church doctrines of the Trinity and the
   person of Christ. Logically their system led to a rationalistic
   Christology. [1776]

   Pelagianism is a fundamental anthropological heresy, denying man's need
   of redemption, and answering to the Ebionistic Christology, which
   rejects the divinity of Christ. It is the opposite of Manichaeism,
   which denies man's capability of redemption, and which corresponds to
   the Gnostic denial of the true humanity of Christ. [1777]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1757]  Pelagius, in Aug. De gratia Christi, c. 31 (x. 244): "Liberi
   arbitrii potestatem dicimus in omnibus esse generaliter, in
   Christianis, Judaeis atque gentilibus. In omnibus est liberum arbitrium
   aequaliter per natumam, sed in solis Christianis juvatur gratia."

   [1758]  De Civit. Dei, v. 13-20 and xix. 25. In the latter place he
   calls the virtues, which do not come from true religion, vices.
   "Virtutes ... nisi ad Deum retulerit, etiam ipsa vitia sunt potius quam
   virtutes." From this is doubtless derived the sentence so often
   attributed to Augustine: "The virtues of the heathen are splendid
   vices," which, however, in this form and generality, does not, to my
   knowledge, occur in his writings. More on this point, see below, § 156.

   [1759]  De Genesi ad Lit. viii. 14; ReTract. ii. 24. Comp. Wiggers, i.
   p. 120 ff.

   [1760]  Pelagius, Pro libero arbitrio, cited in Augustine's De gratia
   Christi, c. 4 (§ 5, tom. x. fol. 232): "Posse in natura, velle in
   arbitrio, esse in effectu locamus. Primum illud, id est posse, ad Deum
   proprie pertinet, qui illud creatrrae suae contulit, duo vero reliqua,
   hoc est velle et esse, ad hominem referenda sunt quia de arbitrii fonte
   descendunt. Ergo in voluntate et opera bono laus hominis est: immo et
   hominis et Dei, qui ipsius voluntatis et operis possibilitatem dedit,
   quique ipsam possibilitatem gratiae suae adjuvat semper auxilio."

   [1761]  "Quod possumus videre oculis, nostrum non est: quod vero bene
   aut male videmus, hoc nostrum est .... Quod loqui possumus, Dei est:
   quod vero bene vel male loquimur, nostrum est." Quoted in Augustine's
   De gratia Christi, c. 15 and 16 (fol. 237 and 238). Augustinecites
   against these examples Ps. cxix. 37: "Averte oculos meos, ne videant
   vanitatem."

   [1762]  Phil. ii. 13. Augustineappeals to this passage, De gratia
   Christi, c. 5 (f. 232 sq.) with great emphasis, as if Paul with
   prophetic eye had had in view the error of Pelagius.

   [1763]  It is against this deistic view that the pregnant lines of
   Goethe are directed:
   "Was wär' ein Gott der nur von aussen stiesse,
   Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen liesse;

   [1764]  Epistola ad Ctesiphontem. Dr. Neander (Church History, vol. ii.
   p. 604 ff. Torrey's transl.) regards this difference of view concerning
   the relation of the Creator to the creature as the most original and
   fundamental difference between the Augustinian and Pelagian system,
   although it did not clearly come to view in the progress of the
   controversy.

   [1765]  Pelagius, in Aug. De gratia Christi, c. 7 (§ 8, x. f. 233): "
   ... Deus ... gratiae suae auxilium subministrat, ut quod per liberum
   homines facere jubentur arbitrium, facilius possent implere per
   gratiam."

   [1766]  Pelag. Com. in Rom. iv. 6: "Ad hoc fides prima ad justitiam
   reputatur, ut de praeterito absolvatur et de paesenti justificatur, et
   ad futura fidei opera praeparatur." Similarly Julianof Eclanum.
   Augustine, on the contrary, has the evangelical conception of faith and
   of grace, but not of justification, which he interprets subjectively as
   a progressive making righteous, like the Roman church. Comp. De gratia
   Christi, c. 47 (§ 52, x. f. 251): "... gratiam Dei ... in qua nos sua,
   non nostrae justitiae justos facit, ut ea sit vera nostra justitia quae
   nobis ab illo est." In another passage, however, he seems to express
   the Protestant view. De spir. et Lit. c. 26 (§ 45, tom. x. 109): "Certe
   ita dictum est: justificabuntur, se si diceretur: justi habebuntur,
   justi deputabuntur, sicut dictum est de quodam: Ille autem volens se
   justificare (Luc. x. 29), i.e., ut justus haberetur et deputaretur."

   [1767]  In Aug. De gratia Chr. c. 31 (tom. x. fol. 244): "In illis
   nudum et inerme est conditionis bonum; in his vero qui ad Christum
   pertinent, Christi munitur auxilio."

   [1768]  Aug. De pecc. orig. c. 26 (§ 30, tom. x. f. 266): "Non, sicut
   Pelagius et ejus discipuli, tempora dividamus dicentes: primum vixisse
   justos homines ex natura, deinde sub lege, tertio sub gratia."

   [1769]  Cited from Pelagius, l. c.: "Postquam nimia, sicut disputant,
   peccandi consuetudo praevaluit cui sanandae lex parum valeret, Christus
   advenit et tanquam morbo desperatissimo non per discipulos, sed per se
   ipsum medicus ipse subvenit."

   [1770]  In Angustine's Opus imperf. i. 94 (tom. x. f. 928)

   [1771] · "Gratiam Dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus dari."

   [1772]  Comp., respecting this, Augustine, De gratia Christi, cap. 2
   (tom. x fol. 229 sq.).

   [1773]  Comp. Rom. iv. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 8, 9. Shakespeare has far better
   understood the nature of grace than Pelagius, in the famous speech of
   Portia in the Merchant of Venice (Act IV. Sc, 1):
   The quality of mercy is not strained:
   It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
   Upon the place beneath; it is twice blessed,
   It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

   [1774]  Pelagius in Aug. De gratis Chr. c. 31 (x. f. 245). The illi,
   according to the connection, must refer to those not Christians, the hi
   to Christians. Yet according to his principles we might in turn fairly
   subdivide each class since according to him there are good heathens and
   bad Christians. Against this Augustineurges: "Ubi est illud apostoli:
   Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius (Rom. iii. 24)? Ubi est illud:
   Gratis salvi facti estis (Eph. ii. 8)?" He concludes with the just
   proposition: "Non est gratia, nisi gratuita."

   [1775]  De gratia Christi, c. 10 (tom. x. f. 235).

   [1776]  Wiggers, l.c. vol. i. p. 467, judges similarly. Also Neander,
   in his Dogmengeschichte, Bd. i. p. 884: "The Pelagian principles would
   logically have led to rationalistic views, to an entire rejection of
   the supernatural element, and to the belief that mankind needs only to
   develop itself from within itself, without the revelation and
   self-impartation of God, in order to attain the good. But they do not
   develop their first principles so consistently as this, and what
   Biblical elements they incorporate with their system are unquestionably
   not taken in merely by way of accommodation, but through the persuasion
   that a supernatural revelation is necessary, in order to realize the
   destiny of mankind." Comp. Cunningham, Hist. Theology, i. p. 829:
   "Modern Socinians and Rationalists are the only consistent Pelagians.
   When men reject what Pelagius rejected, they are bound in consistency
   to reject everything that is peculiar and distinctive in the Christian
   system as a remedial scheme."

   [1777]  Comp. Augustine, Contra duas Epist. Pelagianorum l. ii. c. 2,
   where he describes Manichaeism and Pelagianism at length as the two
   opposite extremes, and opposes to them the Catholic doctrine.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 152. The Augustinian System: The Primitive State of Man, and Free
   Will.

   Augustine (354-430) had already in his Confessions, in the year 400,
   ten years before the commencement of the Pelagian controversy, set
   forth his, deep and rich experiences of human sin and divine grace.
   This classical autobiography, which every theological student should
   read, is of universal application, and in it every Christian may bewail
   his own wanderings, despair of himself, throw himself unconditionally
   into the arms of God, and lay hold upon unmerited grace. [1778]
   Augustine had in his own life passed through all the earlier stages of
   the history of the church, and had overcome in theory and in practice
   the heresy of Manichaeism, before its opposite, Pelagianism, appeared.
   By his theological refutation of this latter heresy, and by his clear
   development of the Biblical anthropology, he has won the noblest and
   most lasting renown. As in the events recorded in his Confessions he
   gives views of the evangelical doctrines of sin and of grace, so in the
   doctrines of his anti-Pelagian writings he sets forth his personal
   experience. He teaches nothing which he has not felt. In him the
   philosopher and the living Christian are everywhere fused. His loftiest
   metaphysical speculation passes unconsciously into adoration. The
   living aroma of personal experience imparts to his views a double
   interest, and an irresistible attraction for all earnest minds. [1779]

   Yet his system was not always precisely the same; it became perfect
   only through personal conflict and practical tests. Many of his earlier
   views--e.g., respecting the freedom of choice, and respecting faith as
   a work of man--he himself abandoned in his Retractations; [1780] and
   hence he is by no means to be taken as an infallible guide. He holds,
   moreover, the evangelical doctrines of sin and grace not in the
   Protestant sense, but, like his faithful disciples, the Jansenists, in
   connection with the sacramental and strict churchly system of
   Catholicism; he taught the necessity of baptismal regeneration and the
   damnation of all unbaptized children, and identified justification in
   substance with sanctification, though he made sanctification throughout
   a work of free grace, and not of human merit. It remains the exclusive
   prerogative of the inspired apostles to stand above the circumstances
   of their time, and never, in combating one error, to fall into its
   opposite. Nevertheless, Augustine is the brightest star in the
   constellation of the church fathers, and diffuses his light through the
   darkest periods of the middle ages, and among Catholics and Protestants
   alike, even to this day. [1781]

   His anthropology may be exhibited under the three stages of the
   religious development of mankind, the status integritatis, the status
   corruptionis, and the status redemtionis.

   I. The Primitive State of man, or the State of Innocence.

   Augustine's conception of paradise is vastly higher than the Pelagian,
   and involves a far deeper fall and a far more glorious manifestation of
   redeeming grace. The first state of man resembles the state of the
   blessed in heaven, though it differs from that final state as the
   undeveloped germ from the perfect fruit. According to Augustine man
   came from the hand of his Maker, his genuine masterpiece, without the
   slightest fault. He possessed freedom, to do good; reason, to know God;
   and the grace of God. But by this grace Augustine (not happy in the
   choice of his term) means only the general supernatural assistance
   indispensable to a creature, that he may persevere in good. [1782] The
   relation of man to God was that of joyful and perfect obedience. The
   relation of the body to the soul was the same. The flesh did not yet
   lust against the spirit; both were in perfect harmony, and the flesh
   was wholly subject to the spirit. "Tempted and assailed by no strife of
   himself against himself, Adam enjoyed in that place the blessedness of
   peace with himself." To this inward state, the outward corresponded.
   The paradise was not only spiritual, but also visible and material,
   without heat or cold, without weariness or excitement, without
   sickness, pains, or defects of any kind. The Augustinian, like the old
   Protestant, delineations, of the perfection of Adam and the
   blissfulness of paradise often exceed the sober standard of Holy
   Scripture, and borrow their colors in part from the heavenly paradise
   of the future, which can never be lost. [1783]

   Yet Augustine admits that the original state of man was only relatively
   perfect, perfect in its kind; as a child may be a perfect child, while
   he is destined to become a man; or as the seed fulfils its idea as
   seed, though it has yet to become a tree. God alone is immutable and
   absolutely good; man is subject to development in time, and therefore
   to change. The primal gifts were bestowed on man simply as powers, to
   be developed in either one of two ways. Adam could go straight forward,
   develop himself harmoniously in untroubled unity with God, and thus
   gradually attain his final perfection; or he could fall away, engender
   evil ex nihilo by abuse of his free will, and develop himself through
   discords and contradictions. It was graciously made possible that his
   mind should become incapable of error, his will, of sin, his body, of
   death; and by a normal growth this possibility would have become
   actual. But this was mere possibility, involving, in the nature of the
   case, the opposite possibility of error, sin, and death.

   Augustine makes the important distinction between the possibility of
   not sinning [1784] and the impossibility of sinning. [1785] The former
   is conditional or potential freedom from sin, which may turn into its
   opposite, the bondage of sin. This belonged to man before the fall. The
   latter is the absolute freedom from sin or the perfected holiness,
   which belongs to God, to the holy angels who have acceptably passed
   their probation, and to the redeemed saints in heaven.

   In like manner he distinguishes between absolute and relative
   immortality. [1786] The former is the impossibility of dying, founded
   upon the impossibility of sinning; an attribute of God and of the
   saints after the resurrection. The latter is the bare pre-conformation
   for immortality, and implies the opposite possibility of death. This
   was the immortality of Adam before the fall, and if he had persevered,
   it would have passed into the impossibility of dying; but it was lost
   by sin. [1787]

   Freedom, also, Augustine holds to be an original endowment of man; but
   he distinguishes different kinds of it, and different degrees of its
   development, which we must observe, or we should charge him with
   self-contradiction. [1788]

   By freedom Augustine understands, in the first place, simply
   spontaneity or self-activity, as opposed to action under external
   constraint or from animal instinct. Both sin and holiness are
   voluntary, that is, acts of the will, not motions of natural necessity.
   [1789] This freedom belongs at all times and essentially to the human
   will, even in the sinful state (in which the will is, strictly
   speaking, self-willed); it is the necessary condition of guilt and
   punishment, of merit and reward. In this view no thinking man can deny
   freedom, without destroying the responsibility and the moral nature of
   man. An involuntary, will is as bald a self-contradiction as an
   unintelligent intelligence. [1790]

   A second form of freedom is the liberum arbitrium, or freedom of
   choice. Here Augustine goes half-way with Pelagius; especially in his
   earlier writings, in opposition to Manichaeism, which denied all
   freedom, and made evil a natural necessity and an original substance.
   Like Pelagius he ascribes freedom of choice to the first man before the
   fall. God created man with the double capacity of sinning or not
   sinning, forbidding the former and commanding the latter. But Augustine
   differs from Pelagius in viewing Adam not as poised in entire
   indifference between good and evil, obedience and disobedience but as
   having a positive constitutional tendency to the good, yet involving,
   at the same time, a possibility of sinning. [1791] Besides, Augustine,
   in the interest of grace and of true freedom, disparages the freedom of
   choice, and limits it to the beginning, the transient state of
   probation. This relative indecision cannot be at all predicated of God
   or the angels, of the saints or of sinners. It is an imperfection of
   the will, which the actual choosing of the good or the evil more or
   less surmounts. Adam, with the help of divine grace, without which be
   might will the good, indeed, but could not persevere in it, should have
   raised himself to the true freedom, the moral necessity of good; but by
   choosing the evil, he fell into the bondage of sin. [1792] Augustine,
   however, incidentally concedes, that the liberum arbitrium still so far
   exists even in fallen man, that he can choose, not indeed between sin
   and holiness, but between individual actions within the sphere of
   sinfulness and of justitia civilis. [1793]

   Finally, Augustine speaks most frequently and most fondly of the
   highest freedom, the free self-decision or self-determination of the
   will towards the good and holy, the blessed freedom of the children of
   God; which still includes, it is true, in this earthly life, the
   possibility of sinning, but becomes in heaven the image of the divine
   freedom, a felix necessitas boni, and cannot, because it will not, sin.
   [1794] it is the exact opposite of the dura necessitas mali in the
   state of sin. It is not a faculty possessed in common by all rational
   minds, but the highest stage of moral development, confined to true
   Christians. This freedom Augustine finds expressed in that word of our
   Lord: "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." It
   does not dispense with grace, but is generated by it; the more grace,
   the more freedom. The will is free in proportion as it is healthy, and
   healthy in proportion as it moves in the element of its true life, in
   God, and obeys Him of its own spontaneous impulse. To serve God is the
   true freedom. [1795]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1778]  An ingenious but somewhat far-fetched parallel is drawn by Dr.
   Kleinert between Augustineand Faust, as two antipodal representatives
   of mankind, in a brochure: Augustin und Goethe's Faust, Berlin, 1866. A
   more obvious comparison is that of the Confessions of Augustinewith the
   Confessions of Rousseau, and with Goethe's Wahrheit und Dichtung.

   [1779]  Dr. Baur, in his posthumous Vorlesungen über the
   Dogmengeschichte, published by his son (1866, Bd. i. p. ii. p. 26),
   makes the fine remark respecting him: "With Augustinehimself everything
   lies in the individuality of his nature, as it was shaped by the course
   of his life, by his experiences and circumstances." He should have
   added, however, that in so magnificent a personality as Augustine's,
   that which is most individual is also the most universal, and the most
   subjective is the most objective.

   [1780]  Retract. l. i. c. 9.

   [1781]  Baur, l.c. p. 32 f.: "From the time that Augustinedirected the
   development of the Christian system to the two doctrines of sin and
   grace, this tendency always remained in the Occidental dogmatics the
   prevailing one, and so great and increasingly predominant in the course
   of time did the authority of Augustinebecome in the church, that even
   those who had departed from his genuine teachings, which many were
   unwilling to follow out with rigid consistency, yet believed themselves
   bound to appeal to his authority, which his writings easily gave them
   opportunity to do, since his system, as the result of periods of
   development so various, and antitheses so manifold, offers very
   different sides, from which it can be interpreted."

   [1782]  Grace, in this wider sense, as source of all good,
   Augustinemakes independent of sin, and ascribes the possession of it
   even to the good angels. Comp. De corrupt. et grat. § 32 (tom. x. 767,
   768): "Dederat [Deus homini] adjutorium sine quo in ea [bona voluntate]
   non posset permanere si vellet; ut autem vellet, in ejus libero
   reliquit arbitrio. Posset ergo permanere si vellet: quia non deerat
   adjutorium per quod posset et sine quo non posset perseveranter bonum
   tenere quod vellet .... Si autem hoc adjutorium vel angelo vel homini,
   cum primum facti sunt, defuisset, quoniam non talis natura facta erat,
   ut sine divino adjutorio posset manere si vellet, non utique sua culpa
   cecidissent: adjutorium quippe defuisset, sine quo manere non possent."
   We see here plainly the germ of the scholastic and Roman Catholic
   doctrine of the justitia originalis, which was ascribed to the first
   man as a special endowment of divine grace or a supernatural accident,
   on the ground of the familiar distinction between the imago Dei (which
   belongs to the essence of man and consists in reason and free will) and
   the similitude Dei (the actual conformity to the divine will).

   [1783]  Comp. several passages in the Opus imperf. i. 71; iii. 147; vi.
   9, 17; Contra Jul. v. 5; De civitate Dei, xiii. 1, 13, 14, 21; xiv. 10,
   where he depicts the beatitudo and deliciae of Eden in poetic colors,
   and extends the perfection even to the animal and vegetable realms. Yet
   he is not everywhere consistent. His views became more exaggerated from
   his opposition to Pelagianism. In the treatise, De libero arbitrio,
   iii. c. 24, §§ 71, 72, which he completed a.d.395, he says, that the
   first human beings were neither wise nor foolish, but had at first only
   the capability to become one or the other. "Infans nec stultus nec
   sapiens dici potest, quamvis jam homo sit; ex quo apparet natumm
   hominis recipere aliquid medium, quod neque stultitiam neque sapientiam
   recte vocaris." ..."Ita factus est homo, ut quamvis sapiens nondum
   esset, praeceptum tamen posset accipere." On the other hand, in his
   much later Opus imperf. c. Julianum, l. v. c. 1 (tom. x. f. 1222) he
   ascribes to the first men excellentissima sapientia, appealing to
   Pythagoras, who is said to have declared him the wisest who first gave
   names to things.

   [1784]  Posse non peccare, which at the same time implies the
   possibilitas peccandi Comp. Opus imperf. v. 60 (fol. 1278): "Prorsus
   ita factus est, ut peccandi possibilitatem haberet a necessario,
   peccatum vero a possibili," i.e., the possibility of sinning was
   necessary, but the sinning itself merely possible. The peccare posse,
   says Augustine, in the same connection, is natura, the peccare is
   culpa.

   [1785]  Non posse peccare, or impossibilitas peccandi.

   [1786]  Between the non posse mori and the posse non mori, or between
   the immortalitas major and the immortalitas minor.

   [1787]  Comp. Opus imperf. l. vi. cap. 30 (tom. x. fol 1360): "Illa
   vero immortalitas in qua sancti angeli vivunt, et in qua nos quoque
   victuri sumus, procul dubio major est. Non enim talis, in qua homo
   habeat quidem in potestate non mori, sicut non peccare, sed etiam
   possit et mori, quia potest peccare: sed talis est illa immortalitas,
   in qua omnis qui ibi est, vel erit, mori non poterit, quia nec peccare
   jam poterit." De corrept. et grat. § 33 (x. f. 168): "Prima libertas
   voluntatis erat, posse non peccare, novissima erit multo major, non
   posse peccare: Prima immortalitas erat, posse non mori, novissima erit
   multo major, non posse mori: prima erat perseverantiae potestas, bonum
   posse non deserere; novissima erit felicitas perseverantiae, bonum non
   posse deserere."

   [1788]  The distinctions in the Augustinian idea of freedom have been
   overlooked by Wiggers and most of the old historians, but, on the other
   hand, brought out with more or less clearness by Neander (in the
   Kirchengeschichte and in the Dogmengeschichte), by Ritter (Gesch. der
   christl. Philosophic, ii. p. 341 ff.), Jul. Müller (Die christl. Lehre
   von der Sünde, ii. 45 ff.), Joh. Huber (Philosophic der Kirchenväter,
   p. 296 ff.). Baur bases his acute criticism of the Augustinian system
   in part upon the false assumption that Augustine's view of the liberum
   arbitrium was precisely the same as that of Pelagius. See below.

   [1789]  Retract. i. c. 9, § 4: "Voluntas est qua et peccatur, et recte
   vivitur."

   [1790]  Here belong especially the first chapters of the treatises, De
   gratia et libero arbitrio (tom. x. fol. 717-721), of the Opus imperf.
   contra Julianum, and Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum. In this sense
   even the strictest adherents of the Augustinian and Calvinistic system
   have always more or less explicitly conceded human freedom. Thus
   Cunningham, a Calvinist of the Free Church of Scotland, in his
   presentation of the Pelagian controversy (Hist. Theol. i. p. 325):
   "Augustinecertainly did not deny man's free will altogether, and in
   every sense of the word; and the most zealous defenders of the
   doctrines of grace and of Calvinistic principles have admitted that
   there is a free will or free agency, in some sense, which man has, and
   which is necessary to his being responsible for his transgressions of
   God's law. It is laid down in our own [the Westminster) Confession,
   that 'God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that
   it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature
   determined to good or evil.' " Dr. Shedd, an American Presbyterian of
   the Old School, in his History of Christian Doctrine, ii. p. 66, where
   he, in Augustine's view, expresses his own, says: "The guilt of sin
   consists in its unforced wilfulness; and this guilt is not in the least
   diminished by the fact that the will cannot overcome its own
   wilfulness. For this wicked wilfulness was not created in the will, but
   is the product of the will's act of apostasy. The present impotence to
   holiness is not an original and primitive impotence. By creation Adam
   had plenary power, not indeed to originate holiness, for no creature
   has this, but to preserve and perpetuate it. The present destitution of
   holiness, and impossibility of originating it, is due therefore to the
   creature's apostatizing agency, and is a part of his condemnation."
   Also, p. 80: "There is no author in the whole theological catalogue,
   who is more careful and earnest than Augustine, to assert that sin is
   self-activity, and that its source is in the voluntary nature of man.
   Sin, according to him, is not a substance, but an agency; it is not the
   essence of any faculty in man, but only the action of a faculty."
   Neither Dr. Cunningham nor Dr. Shedd, however, takes any account of the
   different forms and degrees of freedom in the Augustinian system.

   [1791]  This important distinction is overlooked by Baur, in his
   Kirchengeschichte vom 4-6ten Jahrhundert, p. 143. It takes off the edge
   from his sharp criticism of the Augustinian system, in which he charges
   it with inconsistency in starting from the same idea of freedom as
   Pelagius and yet opposing it.

   [1792]  Comp. respecting this conception of freedom, the treatise, De
   libero arbitrio (in Opera, tom. i. f. 569 sqq.), which was begun
   a.d.388, and finished a.d.395, and belongs therefore to his earliest
   writings; also, De correptione et gratia (especially cap. 9-11), and
   the sixth book of the Opus imperf. c. Julianum. Also Contra duas
   epistolas Pelag. l. ii. c. 2 (tom. x. f. 432), where he opposes both
   the Manichaean denial of the liberum arbitrium and the Pelagian
   assertion of its continuance after the fall. "Manichaei negant, homini
   bono ex libero arbitrio fuisse initium mali; Pelagiani dicunt, etiam
   hominem malum sufficienter habere liberum arbitrium ad faciendum
   praeceptum bonum; catholica [fides] utrosque redarguit, et illis
   dicens: Fecit Deus hominem rectum, et istis dicens: Si vos Filius
   liberaverit, vere liberi eritis."

   [1793]  Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ii. c. 5 (or § 9, tom. x. f. 436):
   "Peccato Adae arbitrium liberum de hominum natura periisse non dicimus,
   sed ad peccandum valere in hominibus subditis diabolo, ad bene autem
   pieque vivendum non valere, nisi ipsa voluntas hominis Dei gratia
   fuerit liberata, et ad omne bonum actionis, sermonis, cogitationis
   adjuta." Also, De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 15 (x. f. 184): "Semper
   est autem in nobis voluntas libera, sed non semper est bona. Aut enim a
   justitia libera est, quando servit peccato, et tunc est mala; aut a
   peceato libera est, quando servit justitiae, et tunc est bona. Gratia
   vero Dei semper est bona." Dr. Baur, it is true (Die christl Kirche vom
   Anfang des 4ten bis Ende des 6ten Jahrhunderts, p. 140), is not wholly
   wrong when he, with reference to this passage, charges Augustinewith an
   equivocal play upon words, in retaining the term freedom, but changing
   its sense into its direct opposite. "Meaningless as it is," says Baur,
   "to talk in this equivocal sense of freedom, we however see even from
   this what interest the idea of freedom still had for him, even after he
   had sacrificed it to the determinism of his system." The Lutheran
   theolgians likewise restricted the liberum arbitrium of fallen man to
   the justitia civilis, in distinction from the justitia Dei, or
   spiritualis. Comp. Melanchthon, in the Confessio Augustana, art. xviii.
   The Formula Concordiae goes even beyond Augustine, and compares the
   natural man in spiritualibus et divinis rebus with a "status salis,"
   "truncus," and "lapis" nay, makes him out yet worse off, inasmuch as he
   is not merely passive, but "voluntati divinae rebellis est et inimicus
   " (pp. 661 and 662).

   [1794]  De corrept. et gratia, § 32 (x. 768): "Quid erit liberius
   libero arbitrio, quando non poterit servire peccato? ... § 33: Prima
   libertas voluntatis erat, posse non peccare, novissima erit multo
   major, non posse peccare."

   [1795]  "Deo servire vera libertas est;" a profound and noble saying.
   This higher conception of freedom Augustinehad substantially expressed
   long before the Pelagian controversy, e.g., in the Confessions. Comp.
   also De civit. Dei l. xiv. c. 11: "Arbitriam igitur voluntatis tunc est
   vere liberum, quum vitiis peccatisque non servit. Tale datum est a Deo:
   quod amissum proprio vitio, nisi a quo dari potuit, reddi non potest.
   Unde veritas dicit: Si vos filisliberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis,
   Id ipsum est autem, ac si diceret: Si vos Filius salvos fecerit, tunc
   vere salvi eritis. inde quippe liberatur, unde salvatur."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 153. The Augustinian System: The Fall and its Consequences.

   To understand Augustine's doctrine of the fall of man, we must
   remember, first of all, that he starts with the idea of the organic
   unity of the human race, and with the profound parallel of Paul between
   the first and the second Adam; [1796] that he views the first man not
   merely as an individual, but at the same time as the progenitor and
   representative of the whole race, standing to natural mankind in the
   same relation as that of Christ to redeemed and regenerate mankind. The
   history of the fall, recorded in a manner at once profound and
   childlike in the third chapter of Genesis, has, therefore, universal
   significance. In Adam human nature fell, and therefore all, who have
   inherited that nature from him, who were in him as the fruit in the
   germ, and who have grown up, as it were, one person with him. [1797]

   But Augustine did not stop with the very just idea of an organic
   connection of the human race, and of the sin of Adam with original sin;
   he also supposed a sort of pre-existence of all the posterity of Adam
   in himself, so that they actually and personally sinned in him, though
   not, indeed, with individual consciousness. Since we were, at the time
   of the fall, "in lumbis Adami," the sin of Adam is "jure seminationis
   et germinationis," our sin and guilt, and physical death is a penalty
   even upon infant children, as it was a penalty upon Adam. The posterity
   of Adam therefore suffer punishment not for the sin of another, but for
   the sin which they themselves committed in Adam. This view, as we shall
   see farther on, Augustine founds upon a false interpretation of Rom. v.
   12.

   I. The Fall. The original state of man included the possibility of
   sinning, and this was the imperfection of that state. This possibility
   became reality. Why it should have been realized, is incomprehensible;
   since evil never has, like good, a sufficient reason. It is
   irrationality itself. Augustine fixes an immense gulf between the
   primitive state and the state of sin. But when thought has accomplished
   this adventurous leap, it finds his system coherent throughout.

   Adam did not fall without temptation from another. That angel, who, in
   his pride, had turned away from God to himself, tempted man, who,
   standing yet in his integrity, provoked his envy. He first approached
   the woman, the weaker and the more credulous. The essence of the sin of
   Adam consisted not in the eating of the fruit; for this was in itself
   neither wrong nor harmful; but in disobedience to the command of God.
   "Obedience was enjoined by that commandment, as the virtue which, in
   the rational creature, is, as it were, the mother and guardian of all
   virtues." The principle, the root of sin, was pride, self-seeking, the
   craving of the will to forsake its author, and become its own. This
   pride preceded the outward act. Our first parents were sinful in heart,
   before they had yet fallen into open disobedience. "For man never yet
   proceeded to an evil work, unless incited to it by an evil will." This
   pride even preceded the temptation of the serpent. "If man had not
   previously begun to take pleasure in himself, the serpent could have
   had no hold upon him."

   The fall of Adam appears the greater, and the more worthy of
   punishment, if we consider, first, the height he occupied, the divine
   image in which he was created; then, the simplicity of the commandment,
   and ease of obeying it, in the abundance of all manner of fruits in
   paradise; and finally, the sanction of the most terrible punishment
   from his Creator and greatest Benefactor.

   Thus Augustine goes behind the appearance to the substance; below the
   surface to the deeper truth. He does not stop with the outward act, but
   looks chiefly at the disposition which lies at its root.

   II. The Consequences of the primal sin, both for Adam and for his
   posterity, are, in Augustine's view, comprehensive and terrible in
   proportion to the heinousness of the sin itself. And all these
   consequences are at the same time punishments from the righteous God,
   who has, by one and the same law, joined reward with obedience and
   penalty with sin. They are all comprehended under death, in its widest
   sense; as Paul says: "The wages of sin is death;" and in Gen. ii. 17 we
   are to understand by the threatened death, all evil both to body and to
   soul.

   Augustine particularizes the consequences of sin under seven heads; the
   first four being negative, the others positive:

   1. Loss of the freedom of choice, [1798] which consisted in a positive
   inclination and love to the good, with the implied possibility of sin.
   In place of this freedom has come the hard necessity of sinning,
   bondage to evil. "The will, which, aided by grace, would have become a
   source of good, became to Adam, in his apostasy from God, a source of
   evil."

   2. Obstruction of knowledge. Man was originally able to learn
   everything easily, without labor, and to understand everything aright.
   But now the mind is beclouded, and knowledge can be acquired and
   imparted only in the sweat of the face.

   3. Loss of the grace of God, which enabled man to perform the good
   which his freedom willed, and to persevere therein. By not willing, man
   forfeited his ability, and now, though he would do good, he cannot.

   4. Loss of paradise. The earth now lies under the curse of God: it
   brings forth thorns and thistles, and in the sweat of his face man must
   eat his bread.

   5. Concupiscence, i.e., not sensuousness in itself, but the
   preponderance of the sensuous, the lusting of the flesh against the
   spirit. Thus God punishes sin with sin--a proposition which Julian
   considered blasphemy. Originally the body was as joyfully obedient to
   the spirit, as man to God. There was but one will in exercise. By the
   fall this beautiful harmony has been broken, and that antagonism has
   arisen which Paul describes in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to
   the Romans. (Augustine referred this passage to the regenerate state.)
   The rebellion of the spirit against God involved, as its natural
   punishment, the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit.
   Concupiscentia, therefore, is substantially the same as what Paul calls
   in the bad sense "flesh." It is not the sensual constitution in itself,
   but its predominance over the higher, rational nature of man. [1799] It
   is true, however, that Augustine, in his longing after an unimpeded
   life in the spirit, was inclined to treat even lawful appetites, such
   as hunger and thirst, so far as they assume the form of craving desire,
   as at least remotely connected with the fall. [1800] Julian attributed
   the strength of animal desire to the animal element in the original
   nature of man. Augustine answered, that the superiority of man to the
   brute consists in the complete dominion of reason over the sensual
   nature, and that therefore his approach to the brute in this respect is
   a punishment from God. Concupiscence then is no more a merely corporeal
   thing than the biblical sarx, but has its seat in the soul, without
   which no lust arises. We must, therefore, suppose a conflict in the
   soul itself, a lower, earthly, self-seeking instinct, and a higher,
   god-like impulse.

   This is the generic sense of concupiscentia: the struggle of the
   collective sensual and psychical desires against the god-like spirit.
   But Augustine frequently employs the word, as other corresponding terms
   are used, in the narrower sense of unlawful sexual desire. This
   appeared immediately after the fall, in the shame of our first parents,
   which was not for their nakedness itself, since this was nothing new to
   them, but for the lusting of the body; for something, therefore, in and
   of itself good (the body's, own enjoyment, as it were), but now
   unlawfully rising, through the discord between body and soul. But would
   there then have been propagation without the fall? Unquestionably; but
   it would have left the dominion of reason over the sensual desire
   undisturbed. Propagation would have been the act of a pure will and
   chaste love, and would have had no more shame about it than the
   scattering of seed upon the maternal bosom of the earth. But now lust
   rules the spirit; and Augustine in his earlier years had had bitter
   experience of its tyranny. To this element of sin in the act of
   procreation he ascribes the pains of childbirth, which in fact appear
   in Genesis as a consequence of the fall, and as a curse from God. Had
   man remained pure, "the ripe fruit would have descended from the
   maternal womb without labor or pain of the woman, as the fruit descends
   from the tree." [1801]

   6.Physical death, with its retinue of diseases and bodily pains. Adam
   was indeed created mortal, that is, capable of death, but not subject
   to death. By a natural development the possibility of dying would have
   been overcome by the power of immortality; the body would have been
   gradually spiritualized and clothed with glory, without a violent
   transition or even the weakness of old age. But now man is fallen under
   the bitter necessity of death. Because the spirit forsook God
   willingly, it must now forsake the body unwillingly. With profound
   discernment Augustine shows that not only the actual severance of soul
   and body, but the whole life of sinful man is a continual dying. Even
   with the pains of birth and the first cry of the child does death
   begin. The threatening of the Lord, therefore: "In the day ye eat
   thereof, ye shall die," began at once to be fulfilled. For though our
   first parents lived many years afterwards, they immediately began to
   grow old and to die. Life is an unceasing march towards death, and "to
   no one is it granted, even for a little, to stand still, or to go more
   slowly, but all are constrained to go with equal pace, and no one is
   impelled differently from others. For he whose life has been shorter,
   saw therefore no shorter day than he whose life was longer. And he who
   uses more time to reach death, does not therefore go slower, but only
   makes a longer journey."

   7. The most important consequence of the fall of Adam is original sin
   and hereditary guilt in his whole posterity; and as this was also one
   of the chief points of controversy, it must be exhibited at length.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1796]  Rom. v. 12 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 22.

   [1797]  De civit. Dei, l. xiii. c. 14: "Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno,
   quando omnes fuimus ille unus, qui per feminam lapsus est in peccatum,
   quae de illo facta est ante peccatum." Compare other passages below.

   [1798]  Of course not in indifferent things of ordinary life, in which
   the greatest sinner is free to choose, but in reference to the great
   religous decision for or against God and divine things.

   [1799]  Not the "sentiendi vivacitas," but the "ribido sentiendi, quae
   nos ad sentiendum, sive consentientes mente, sive repugnantes, appetitu
   voluptatis impellit." C. Julianum, l. iv. c. 14 (§ 65, tom. x. f. 615).
   He illustrates the difference by a reference to Matt. v. 28. "Non ait
   Dominus: qui viderit mulierem, sed: quividerit ad conpiscendum, jam
   maechatus est eam in corde suo. ... Illud [videre] Deus condidit,
   instruendo corpus humanum; illud [videre ad concupiscendum] diabolus
   seminavit, persuadendo peccatum."

   [1800]  "Quis autem mente sobrius non mallet, si fieri posset, sine
   ulla mordaci voluptate carnali vel arida sumere alimenta, vel humida,
   sicut suminus haec aëria, quae de circumfusis auris respirando et
   spirando sorbemus et fundimus?" Contra Jul. iv. c. 14, § 68, f. 616.

   [1801]  De civitate Dei, xiv. 26.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 154. The Augustinian System: Original Sin, and the Origin of the
   Human Soul.

   Original sin, [1802] according to Augustine, is the native bent of the
   soul towards evil, with which all the posterity of Adam--excepting
   Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a pure
   Virgin--come into the world, and out of which all actual sins of
   necessity proceed. It appears principally in concupiscence, or the war
   of the flesh against the spirit. Sin is not merely an individual act,
   but also a condition, a status and habitus, which continues, by
   procreation, from generation to generation. Original sin results
   necessarily, as has been already remarked, from the generic and
   representative character of Adam, in whom human nature itself, and so,
   potentially, all who should inherit that nature, fell. [1803] The
   corruption of the root communicates itself to the trunk and the
   branches. But where sin is, there is always guilt and ill-desert in the
   eyes of a righteous God. The whole race, through the fall of its
   progenitor, has become a massa perditionis. This, of course, still
   admits different degrees both of sinfulness and of guilt.

   Original sin and guilt are propagated by natural generation. The
   generic character planted in Adam unfolds itself in a succession of
   individuals, who organically grow one out of another. As sin, however,
   is not merely a thing of the body, but primarily and essentially of the
   spirit, the question arises, on which of the current theories as to the
   origin and propagagation of souls Augustine based his view.

   This metaphysical problem enters theology in connection with the
   doctrine of original sin; this, therefore, is the place to say what is
   needful upon it. [1804] The Gnostic and pantheistic emanation-theory
   had long since been universally rejected as heretical. But three other
   views had found advocates in the church:

   1. The Traducian [1805] or Generation-theory teaches that the soul
   originates with the body from the act of procreation, and therefore
   through human agency. It is countenanced by several passages of
   Scripture, such as Gen. v. 3; Ps. li. 5; Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 22;
   Eph. ii. 3; it is decidedly suitable to the doctrine of original sin;
   and hence, since Tertullian, it has been adopted by most Western
   theologians in support and explanation of that doctrine. [1806]

   2. The Creation-theory ascribes each individual soul to a direct
   creative act of God, and supposes it to be united with the body either
   at the moment of its generation, or afterwards. This view is held by
   several Eastern theologians and by Jerome, who appeals to the unceasing
   creative activity of God (John v. 17). It required the assumption that
   the Soul, which must proceed pure from the hand of the Creator, becomes
   sinful by its connection with the naturally generated body. Pelagius
   and his followers were creationists. [1807]

   3. The theory of Pre-existence, which was originated by Plato and more
   fully developed by Origen, supposes that the soul, even before the
   origin of the body, existed and sinned in another world, and has been
   banished in the body as in a prison, [1808] to expiate that personal
   Adamic guilt, and by an ascetic process to be restored to its original
   state. This is one of the Origenistic heresies, which were condemned
   under Justinian. Even Gregory of Nyssa, although, like Nemesius and
   Cyril of Alexandria, he supposed the soul to be created before the
   body, compares Origen's theory to the heathen myths and fables. Origen
   himself allowed that the Bible does not directly teach the
   pre-existence of the soul, but maintained that several passages, such
   as the strife between Esau and Jacob in the womb, and the leaping of
   John the Baptist in the womb of Elizabeth at the salutation of Mary,
   imply it. The only truth in this theory is that every human soul has
   from eternity existed in the thought and purpose of God. [1809]

   Augustine emphatically rejects the doctrine of pre-existence, [1810]
   without considering that his own theory of a generic pre-existence and
   apostasy of all men in Adam is really liable to similar objections. For
   he also hangs the whole fate of the human race on a transcendental act
   of freedom, lying beyond our temporal consciousness though, it is true,
   he places this act in the beginning of earthly history, and ascribes it
   to the one general ancestor, while Origen transfers it into a previous
   world, and views it as an act of each individual soul. [1811]

   But between creationism and traducianism Augustine wavers, because the
   Scriptures do not expressly decide. He wishes to keep both the
   continuous creative activity of God and the organic union of body and
   soul.

   Augustine regards this whole question as belonging to science and the
   schools, not to faith and the church, and makes a confession of
   ignorance which, in a man of his speculative genius, involves great
   self-denial. "Where the Scripture," he says, "renders no certain
   testimony, human inquiry must beware of deciding one way or the other.
   If it were necessary to salvation to know anything concerning it,
   Scripture would have said more." [1812]

   The three theories of the origin of the soul, we may remark by way of
   concluding criticism, admit of a reconciliation. Each of them contains
   an element of truth, and is wrong only when exclusively held. Every
   human soul has an ideal pre-existence in the divine mind, the divine
   will, and we may add, in the divine life; and every human soul as well
   as every human body is the product of the united agency of God and the
   parents. Pre-existentianism errs in confounding an ideal with a
   concrete, self-conscious, individual pre-existence; traducianism, in
   ignoring the creative divine agency without which no being, least of
   all an immortal mind, can come into existence, and in favoring a
   materialistic conception of the soul; creationism, in denying the human
   agency, and thus placing the soul in a merely accidental relation to
   the body.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1802]  Peccatum originals, vitium hereditarium.

   [1803]  De peccatorum meritis et remissione, l. iii. c. 7 (§ 14, tom.
   x. f. 78): "In Adam omnes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura illa
   insita vi, qua eos gignere poterat, adhuc omnes ille unus fuerunt." De
   corrept. et gratia, § 28 (x. f 765): "Quia vero [Adam] per liberum
   arbitrium Deum deseruit, justum judicium Dei expertus est, ut cum tota
   sua stirpe, quae in illo adhuc posita tota cum illo peccaverat,
   damnaretur." This view easily fell in with Augustine's
   Platonico-Aristotelian realism, which regarded the general conceptions
   as the original types of individual things. But the root of it lay
   deeper in his Christian consciousness and profound conviction of the
   all-pervading power of sin.

   [1804]  "La première difficulté est," says Leibnitz in the Theodicée,
   Partie i. 86, comment l'âme a pu être infectée du péché originel, qui
   est la racine des péchés actuels, sans qu'il y sit en de l'injustice en
   Dieu à l'y exposer."

   [1805]  From tradux, propagator. The author of this theory is
   Tertullian, De anima, c. 27 (Opera, ed. Fr. Oehler, tom. ii. p. 599
   sqq.): "Immo simul ambas [animam et corpus] et concipi et confici et
   perfici dicimus, sicut et promi, nec ullum intervenire momentum in
   concepta quo locus ordinetur. ... Igitur ex uno homine tota haec
   animarum redundantia." Cap. 86 (p. 617): "Anima in utero seminata
   pariter cum came pariter cum ipsa sortitur." Comp. c. 19 (anima velut
   surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propaginem deducta); De resurr.
   carnis, c. 45; Adv. Valentin. c. 26 (tradux animae). With
   Tertullianthis theory was connected with a materializing view of the
   soul.

   [1806]  Jeromesays of the maxima pars occidentalium, that they teach:
   "Ut quomodo corpus ex corpore, sic anima nascatur ex anima, et simili
   cum brutis animalibus conditione subsistat." Ep. 78 ad Marcell. Leo the
   Great declared it even to be catholica fides, that every man "in
   corporis et animae subetantiam fomari intra materna viscera." Ep. 15 ad
   Turrib. Similarly among the Oriental fathers, Theodoret, Fab. haer. v.
   9: he ekklesia tois theiois peithomene logois, --legei ten psuchen
   sundemiourgeisthaito somati.

   [1807]  Jeromesays, appealing to John v. 17; Zech. xii. 1; Ps. xxxiii.
   15: "Quotidie Deus fabricatur animas, cujus velle fecisse est, et
   conditor esse non cessat." Pelagius, in his Confession of Faith,
   declares for the view that souls are made and given by God Himself.

   [1808]  The somainterpreted as sema(sepulchre). Origen appeals to the
   groaning of the creation, Rom. viii. 19.

   [1809]  Lately the theory of pre-existence has found in America an
   advocate in Dr. Edward Beecher, in his book: The Conflict of Ages,
   Boston, 1853. Wordsworth has given it a poetic garb in his Ode on
   Immortality:
   "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
   The soul that rises with us, our life's star,
   Hath had elsewhere its setting,
   And cometh from afar."

   [1810]  De civit. Dei, xi. 23. Ad Oros. c. Priscill. et Orig. c. 8. In
   his earlier work, De libero arbitrio (about 395), he spoke more
   favorably of Pre-existentianism.

   [1811]  Comp. Baur, Vorlesungen über die Dogmengeschichte, Bd. i. Th.
   ii. p. 31: "What essentially distinguishes the Augustinian system from
   that of Origen, consists only [?] in this, that in place of the
   pretemporal fall of souls we have the Adamic apostasy, and that what in
   Origen bears yet a heathen impress, has in Augustineassumed a purely
   Old Testament [certainly, however, also a Pauline] form."

   [1812]  De peccatorum mer. et remiss. l. ii. c. 36, § 59. He still
   remained thus undecided in his Retractations, lib. i. cap. 1, § 3
   (Opera, tom. i. f. 4), where he honestly acknowledges: "Quod attinet ad
   ejus [animi] originem ... nec tunc sciebam, nec adhuc scio." He
   frequently treats of this question, e.g., De anima et ejus origine De
   Genesi ad literam, x. 23; Epist. 190 ad Optatum; and Opus imperf. iv.
   104. Comp. also Gangauf, l.c. p. 248 ff. and John Huber, Philosophie
   der Kirchenväter, p. 291ff. Huber gives the following terse
   presentation of the Augustinian doctrine: "In the problem of the origin
   of the soul Augustinearrived at no definite view. In his earlier
   writings he is as yet even unsettled as to the doctrine of
   pre-existence (De lib. arbitr. i. 12, 24; iii. 20 and 21), but
   afterwards he rejects it most decidedly, especially as presented by
   Origen, and at the same time criticizes his whole theory of the origin
   of the world (De civit. Dei, xi. 23). In like manner he declares
   against the theory of emanation, according to which the soul has flowed
   out of God (De Genes. ad. lit. vii. 2, 3), is of one nature (Epist. 166
   ad Hieron. § 3) and coeternal (De civ. Dei, x. 31). Between creationism
   and generationism, however, he can come to no decision, being kept in
   suspense not so much by scientific as by theological considerations. As
   to generationism, he remembers Tertullian, and fears being compelled,
   like him, to affirm the corporeality of the soul. He perceives,
   however, that this theory explains the transmission of original sin,
   and propounds the inquiry, whether perchance one soul may not spring
   from another, as one light is kindled from another without diminution
   of its flame (Ep. 190 ad Optatum, 4, 14-15). But for creationism the
   chief difficulty lies in this very doctrine of original sin. If the
   soul is created directly by God, it is pure and sinless, and the
   question arises, how it has deserved to be clothed with corrupt flesh
   and brought into the succession of original sin. God Himself appears
   there to be the cause of its sinfulness, inasmuch as he caused it to
   become guilty by uniting it with the body (De an. et ejus orig. i. 8,
   9; ii. 9, 13). All the passages of Scripture relevant to this point
   agree only in this, that God is the Giver, Author, and Former of souls;
   but how he forms them--whether he creates them out of nothing or
   derives them from the parents, they do not declare (lb. iv. 11,
   15).--His doctrine, that God created everything together as to the
   germ, might naturally have inclined him rather to generationism, yet he
   does not get over his indecision, and declares even in his
   Retractations (i. 1, 3), that he neither know previously nor knows now,
   whether succeeding souls were descended from the first one or newly
   created as individuals.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 155. Arguments for the Doctrine of Original Sin and Hereditary Guilt.

   We now pass to the proofs by which Augustine established his doctrine
   of original sin and guilt, and to the objections urged by his
   opponents.

   1. For Scriptural authority he appealed chiefly and repeatedly to the
   words in Rom. v. 12, eph oHu pantes hemarton, which are erroneously
   translated by the Vulgate: in quo [1813] omnes peccaverunt. As
   Augustine had but slight knowledge of Greek, he commonly confined
   himself to the Latin Bible, and here he referred the in quo to Adam
   (the "one man" in the beginning of the verse, which is far too remote);
   but the Greek eph oHu must be taken as neuter and as a conjunction in
   the sense: on the ground that, or because, all have sinned. [1814] The
   exegesis of Augustine, and his doctrine of a personal fall, as it were,
   of all men in Adam, are therefore doubtless untenable. On the other
   hand, Paul unquestionably teaches in this passage a causal connection
   between sin and death, and also a causal connection between the sin of
   Adam and the sinfulness of his posterity, therefore original sin. The
   proof of this is found in the whole parallel between Adam and Christ,
   and their representative relation to mankind (Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 45 ff.),
   and especially in the pavnte" h]marton, but not in the ejf j w| as
   translated by the Vulgate and Augustine. Other passages of Scripture to
   which Augustine appealed, as teaching original sin, were such as Gen.
   viii. 21; Ps. li. 7; John iii. 6; 1 Cor. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 3.

   2. The practice of infant baptism in the church, with the customary
   formula, "for remission of sins," and such accompanying ceremonies as
   exorcism, presupposes the dominion of sin and of demoniacal powers even
   in infancy. Since the child, before the awakening of
   self-consciousness, has committed. no actual sin, the effect of baptism
   must relate to the forgiveness of original sin and guilt. [1815] This
   was a very important point from the beginning of the controversy, and
   one to which Augustine frequently reverted.

   Here he had unquestionably a logical advantage over the Pelagians, who
   retained the traditional usage of infant baptism, but divested it of
   its proper import, made it signify a mere ennobling of a nature already
   good, and, to be consistent, should have limited baptism to adults for
   the forgiveness of actual sins.

   The Pelagians, however, were justly offended by the revolting inference
   of the damnation of unbaptized infants, which is nowhere taught in the
   Holy Scriptures, and is repugnant to every unperverted religious
   instinct. Pelagius inclined to assign to unbaptized infants a middle
   state of half-blessedness, between the kingdom of heaven appointed to
   the baptized and the hell of the ungodly; though on this point he is
   not positive. [1816] He evidently makes salvation depend, not so much
   upon the Christian redemption, as upon the natural moral character of
   individuals. Hence also baptism had no such importance in his view as
   in that of his antagonist.

   Augustine, on the authority of Matt. xxv. 34, 46, and other Scriptures,
   justly denies a neutral middle state, and meets the difficulty by
   supposing different degrees of blessedness and damnation (which, in
   fact, must be admitted), corresponding to the different degrees of
   holiness and wickedness. But, constrained by the idea of original sin,
   and by the supposed necessity of baptism to salvation, he does not
   shrink from consigning unbaptized children to damnation itself, [1817]
   though he softens to the utmost this frightful dogma, and reduces the
   damnation to the minimum of punishment or the privation of blessedness.
   [1818] He might have avoided the difficulty, without prejudice to his
   premises, by his doctrine of the election of grace, or by assuming an
   extraordinary application of the merits of Christ in death or in Hades.
   But the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of outward baptism to
   regeneration and entrance into the kingdom of God, forbade him a more
   liberal view respecting the endless destiny of that half of the human
   race which die in childhood.

   We may recall, however, the noteworthy fact, that the third canon of
   the North-African council at Carthage in 418, which condemns the
   opinion that unbaptized children are saved, is in many manuscripts
   wanting, and is therefore of doubtful authenticity. The sternness of
   the Augustinian system here gave way before the greater power of
   Christian love. Even Augustine, De civitate Dei, speaking of the
   example of Melchisedec, ventures the conjecture, that God may have also
   among the heathen an elect people, true Israelites according to the
   spirit, whom He draws to Himself through the secret power of His
   spirit. Why, we may ask, is not this thought applicable above all to
   children, to whom we know the Saviour Himself, in a very special sense
   (and without reference to baptism) ascribes a right to the kingdom of
   heaven?

   3. The testimony of Scripture and of the church is confirmed by
   experience. The inclination to evil awakes with the awaking of
   consciousness and voluntary activity. Even the suckling gives signs of
   self-will, spite, and disobedience. As moral development advances, the
   man feels this disposition to be really bad, and worthy of punishment,
   not a mere limitation or defect. Thus we find even the child subject to
   suffering, to sickness, and to death. It is contrary to the pure idea
   of God, that this condition should have been the original one. God must
   have created man faultless and inclined towards good. The conviction
   that human nature is not as it should be, in fact pervades all mankind.
   Augustine, in one place, cites a passage of the third book of Cicero's
   Republic: "Nature has dealt with man not as a real mother, but as a
   step-mother, sending him into the world with a naked, frail, and feeble
   body, and with a soul anxious to avoid burdens, bowed down under all
   manner of apprehensions, averse to effort, and inclined to sensuality.
   Yet can we not mistake a certain divine fire of the spirit, which
   glimmers on in the heart as it were under ashes." Cicero laid the blame
   of this on creative nature. "He thus saw clearly the fact, but not the
   cause, for he had no conception of original sin, because he had no
   knowledge of the Holy Scriptures."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1813] 822  Which presupposes en oHu.The whole verse reads in the
   Vulgate: "Propterea, sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum
   intravit et per peccatum more, et ita in omnes homines mors
   pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt." Comp. Augustine, De peccat.
   merit. et remissione, i. 8, 10; Op. imperf. ii. 63; Contra duas Ep.
   Pel. iv. 4; De nupt. et concup. ii. 5. Pelagius explained the passage
   (ad Rom. v. 12): "In eo, quod omnes peccaverunt, exemplo Adae peccant,"
   or per imitationem in contrast with per propagationem. Juliantranslated
   eph oHu propter quod. Comp. Contra Jul. vi. 75; Op. imperf. ii. 66.

   [1814]  Eph oHu (= eph hois ) is equivalent to epi touto hoti, on the
   ground that, presupposing that, propterea quod. So Meyer, in loco, and
   others. R. Rothe (in an extremely acute exegetical monograph upon Rom.
   v. 12-21, Wittenberg, 1836) and Chr. Fr. Schmid (Bibl. Theol. ii. p.
   126) explain eph oHu byepi touto oHuste, i.e., under the more
   particular specification that, inasmuch as. Comp. the Commentaries.

   [1815]  Comp. De nuptiis et concup. i. c. 26 (tom. x. f. 291 sq.); De
   peccat. mer. et remiss. i. c. 26 (§ 39, tom. x. fol. 22); De gratia
   Christi, c. 82, 33 (x. 245 sq.), and other passages. The relation of
   the doctrine of original sin to the practice of infant baptism came
   very distinctly into view from the beginning of the controversy. Some
   have even concluded from a passage of Augustine(De pecc. mer. iii. 6),
   that the controversy began with infant baptism and not with original
   sin. Comp. Wiggers, i. p. 59.

   [1816]  "Quo non eant scio, quo eant nescio," says he of unbaptized
   children. He ascribed to them, it is true, salus or vita aeterna, but
   not the reguum coelorum. Aug. De pecc. mer. et remissione, i. 18; iii.
   3. In the latter place Augustinesays, that it is absurd to affirm a
   "vita aeterna extra regnum Dei." In his book, De haeresibus, cap. 88,
   Augustinesays of the Pelagians that they assign to unbaptized children
   "aeternam et beatam quandam vitam extra regnum Dei," and teach that
   children being born without original sin, are baptized for the purpose
   of being admitted "ad regnum Dei," and transferred "de bono in melius."

   [1817]  De pecc. orig. c. 31 (§ 36, tom. x. f. 269): "Unde ergo recte
   infans illa perditione punitur, nisi quia pertinet ad massam
   perditionis?" De nupt et concup. c. 22 (x. 292): "Remanet originale
   peccatum, per quod [parvuli] sub diaboli potestate captivi sunt, nisi
   inde lavacro regenerationis et Christi sanguine redimantur et transeant
   in regnum redemtoris sui." De peccat. merit. et remissione, iii. cap. 4
   (x. 74): "Manifestum est, eos [parvulos] ad damnationem, nisi hoc
   [incorporation with Christ through baptism] eis collatum fuerit,
   pertinere. Non autem damnari possent, si peccatum utique non haberent."

   [1818]  Contra Julianum, l v. c. 11 (§ 44, tom. x. f. 651): "Si enim
   quod de Sodomis sit [Matt. x. 15; xi. 24] et utique non solis intelligi
   voluit, alius alio tolerabilius in die judicii punietur quis
   dubitaverit parvulos non baptizatos, qui solum habent originale
   peccatum, nec ullis propriis aggravantur, in damnatione omnium
   levissimafuturos? " Comp. De pecc. meritis et remissione, l. i. c. 16
   (or § 21, tom. x. 12): "Potest proinde recte dici, parvulos sine
   baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 156. Answers to Pelagian Objections.

   To these positive arguments must be added the direct answers to the
   objections brought against the Augustinian theory, sometimes with great
   acuteness, by the Pelagians, and especially by Julian of Eclanum, in
   the dialectic course of the controversy.

   Julian sums up his argument against Augustine in five points, intended
   to disprove original sin from premises conceded by Augustine himself:
   If man is the creature of God, he must come from the hands of God good;
   if marriage is in itself good, it cannot generate evil; if baptism
   remits all sins and regenerates, the children of the baptized cannot
   inherit sin; if God is righteous, he cannot condemn children for the
   sins of others; if human nature is capable of perfect righteousness, it
   cannot be inherently defective. [1819]

   We notice particularly the first four of these points; the fifth is
   substantially included in the first.

   1. If original sin propagates itself in generation, if there is a
   tradux peccati and a malum naturale, then sin is substantial, and we
   are found in the Manichaean error, except that we make God, who is the
   Father of children, the author of sin, while Manichaeism refers sin to
   the devil, as the father of human nature. [1820]

   This imputation was urged repeatedly and emphatically by the sharp and
   clear-sighted Julian. But according to Augustine all nature is, and
   ever remains, in itself good, so far as it is nature (in the sense of
   creature); evil is only corruption of nature, vice cleaving to it.
   Manichaeus makes evil a substance, Augustine, only an accident; the
   former views it as a positive and eternal principle, the latter derives
   it from the creature, and attributes to it a merely negative or
   privative existence; the one affirms it to be a necessity of nature,
   the other, a free act; the former locates it in matter, in the body,
   the latter, in the will. [1821] Augustine retorted on the Pelagians the
   charge of Manichaeism, for their locating the carnal lust of man in his
   original nature itself, and so precluding its cure. But in their view
   the concupiscentia carnis was not what it was to Augustine, but an
   innocent natural impulse, which becomes sin only when indulged to
   excess.

   2. If evil is nothing substantial, we should expect that the baptized
   and regenerate, in whom its power is broken, would beget sinless
   children. If sin is propagated, righteousness should be propagated
   also.

   But baptism, according to Augustine, removes only the guilt (reatus) of
   original sin, not the sin itself (concupiscentia). In procreation it is
   not the regenerate spirit that is the agent, but the nature which is
   still under the dominion of the concupiscentia. "Regenerate parents
   produce not as sons of God, but as children of the world."  All that
   are born need therefore regeneration through the same baptism, which
   washes away the curse of original sin. Augustine appeals to analogies;
   especially to the fact that from the seed of the good olive a wild
   olive grows, although the good and the wild greatly differ. [1822]

   3. But if the production of children is not possible without fleshly
   lust, must not marriage be condemned? [1823]

   No; marriage, and the consequent production of children, are, like
   nature, in themselves good. They belong to the mutual polarity of the
   sexes. The blessing: "Be fruitful and multiply," and the declaration:
   "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
   cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh," come down from
   paradise itself, and generation would have taken place even without
   sin, yet "sine ulla libidine," as a "tranquilla motio et conjunctio vel
   commixtio membrorum."  Carnal concupiscence is subsequent and
   adventitious, existing now as an accident in the act of generation, and
   concealed by nature herself with shame; but it does not annul the
   blessing of marriage. It is only through sin that the sexual parts have
   become pudenda; in themselves they are honorable. Undoubtedly the
   regenerate are called to reduce concupiscence to the mere service of
   generation, that they may produce children, who shall be children of
   God, and therefore born again in Christ. Such desire Augustine, with
   reference to 1 Cor. vii. 3 ff., calls "a pardonable guilt."  But since,
   in the present state, the concupiscentia carnis is inseparable from
   marriage, it would have been really more consistent to give up the
   "bonum nuptiarum," and to regard marriage as a necessary evil; as the
   monastic asceticism, favored by the spirit of the age, was strongly
   inclined to do. And in this respect there was no material difference
   between Augustine and Pelagius. The latter went fully as far, and even
   farther, in his praise of virginity, as the highest form of Christian
   virtue; his letter to the nun Demetrias is a picture of a perfect
   virgin who in her moral purity proves the excellency of human nature.

   4. It contradicts the righteousness of God, to suppose one man punished
   for the sin of another. We are accountable only, for sins which are the
   acts of our own will. Julian appealed to the oft-quoted passage, Ezek.
   xviii. 2-4, where God forbids the use of the proverb in Israel: "The
   fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on
   edge," and where the principle is laid down: "The soul that sinneth, it
   shall die." [1824]

   On the individualizing principle of Pelagius this objection is very,
   natural, and is irrefragable; but in the system of Augustine, where
   mankind appears as an organic whole, and Adam as the representative of
   human nature and as including all his posterity, it partially loses its
   force. Augustine thus makes all men sharers in the fall, so that they
   are, in fact, punished for what they themselves did in Adam. But this
   by no means fully solves the difficulty. He should have applied his
   organic view differently, and should have carried it farther. For if
   Adam must not be isolated from his descendants, neither must original
   sin be taken apart from actual sin. God does not punish the one without
   the other. He always looks upon the life of man as a whole; upon
   original sin as the fruitful mother of actual sins; and he condemns a
   man not for the guilt of another, but for making the deed of Adam his
   own, and repeating the fall by his own voluntary transgression. This
   every one does who lives beyond unconscious infancy. But Augustine, as
   we have already, seen, makes even infancy subject to punishment for
   original sin alone, and thus unquestionably trenches not only upon the
   righteousness of God, but also upon his love, which is the beginning
   and end of his ways, and the key to all his works.

   To sum up the Augustinian doctrine of sin: This fearful power is
   universal; it rules the species, as well as individuals; it has its
   seat in the moral character of the will, reaches thence to the
   particular actions, and from them reacts again upon the will; and it
   subjects every man, without exception, to the punitive justice of God.
   Yet the corruption is not so great as to alter the substance of man,
   and make him incapable of redemption. The denial of man's capacity for
   redemption is the Manichaean error, and the opposite extreme to the
   Pelagian denial of the need of redemption. "That is still good," says
   Augustine, "which bewails lost good; for had not something good
   remained in our nature, there would be no grief over lost good for
   punishment." [1825] Even in the hearts of the heathen the law of God is
   not wholly obliterated, [1826] and even in the life of the most
   abandoned men there are some good works. But these avail nothing to
   salvation. They are not truly good, because they proceed from the
   turbid source of selfishness. Faith is the root, and love the motive,
   of all truly good actions, and this love is shed abroad in our hearts
   by the Holy Ghost. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Before the
   time of Christ, therefore, all virtues were either, like the virtues of
   the Old Testament saints, who hoped in the same Christ in whom we
   believe, consciously or unconsciously Christian; or else they prove, on
   closer inspection, to be comparative vices or seeming virtues,
   destitute of the pure motive and the right aim. Lust of renown and lust
   of dominion were the fundamental traits of the old Romans, which first
   gave birth to those virtues of self-devotion to freedom and country, so
   glorious in the eyes of men; but which afterwards, when with the
   destruction of Carthage all manner of moral corruption poured in, begot
   the Roman vices. [1827]

   This view of heathen or natural morality as a specious form of vice,
   though true to a large extent, is nevertheless an unjust extreme, which
   Augustine himself cannot consistently sustain. Even he was forced to
   admit important moral differences among the heathen: between, for
   example, a Fabricius, of incorruptible integrity, and the traitor
   Catiline; and though he merely defines this difference negatively, as a
   greater and less degree of sin and guilt, yet this itself involves the
   positive concession, that Fabricius stands nearer the position of
   Christian morality, and that there exists at least relative goodness
   among the heathen. Moreover, he cannot deny, that there were before
   Christ, not only among the Israelites, but also among the Gentiles,
   God-fearing souls, such as Melchisedec and Job, true Israelites, not
   according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, whom God by the
   secret workings of His Spirit drew to Himself even without baptism and
   the external means of grace. [1828] So the Alexandrian fathers saw
   scattered rays of the Logos in the dark night of heathenism; only they
   were far from discriminating so sharply between what was Christian and
   what was not Christian.

   All human boasting is therefore excluded, man is sick, sick unto death
   out of Christ, but he is capable of health; and the worse the sickness,
   the greater is the physician, the more powerful is the
   remedy--redeeming grace.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1819]  Contra Julianum Pelagianum, l. ii. c. 9 (§ 31, tom. x. f. 545
   sq.).

   [1820]  Comp. as against this the 2d book De nuptiis et concup.; Contra
   Jul. l. i. and ii., and the Opus imperf., in the introduction, and lib.
   iv. cap. 38.

   [1821]  "Non est ulla substantia vel natura, sed vitium." De nupt. et
   concup. l. ii. c. 34 (§ 57, x. f. 332)."Non ortum est malum nisi in
   bono; nec tamen summo et immutabli, quod est natura Dei, sed facto de
   nihilo per sapientiam Dei." Ibid. lib. ii. c. 29 (or § 50, tom. x. f
   327). Comp. particularly also Contra duas Epist. Pelag.ii. c. 2, where
   he sharply discriminates his doctrine alike from Manichaeism and
   Pelagianism. These passages were overlooked by Baurand Milman, who
   think that there is good foundation for the charge of Manichaeism
   against Augustine's doctrine of sin. Gibbon; (ch. xxxiii.) derived the
   orthodoxy of Augustinefrom the Manichaean school!

   [1822]  De peccat. mer. et remiss. ii. cap. 9 and c. 25; De nuptiis et
   concup. i. c. 18; Contra Julian. vi. c. 5.

   [1823]  Comp. against this especially the first book De nuptiis et
   concupiscentia (tom. x. f. 279 sqq.), written 418 or 419, in order to
   refute this objection. Juliananswered this in a work of four books,
   which gave Augustineoccasion to compose the second book De nuptiis et
   concup., and the six books Contra Julianum, a.d.421. Julianpublished an
   answer to this again, which Augustinein turn refuted in his Opus
   imperf., a.d.429, during the writing of which he died, a.d.430.

   [1824]  Aug. Opus imperf. iii. 18, 19 (tom. x. 1067, 1069). Augustine's
   answer is unsatisfactory.

   [1825]  De Genesi ad literam, viii. 14.

   [1826]  Rom. ii. 14.

   [1827]  The sentence often ascribed to Augustine, that "all pagan
   virtues are but splendid vices," is not Augustinian in form, but in
   substance. Comp. the quotation and remarks above, §151. Dr. Baurstates
   his view correctly and clearly when he says (Vorlesungen über die
   Dogmengeschichte, Bd. i. Part 2, p. 342): "If, as Augustinetaught,
   faith in Christ is the highest principle of willing and acting, nothing
   can be truly good, which has not its root in faith, which principle
   Augustinethus expressed, using the words of the apostle Paul, Rom. xiv.
   23: 'Omne, quod non ex fide, peccatum.' Augustinejudged therefore all
   good in the will and act of man after the absolute standard of
   Christian good, and accordingly could only regard the virtues of the
   heathen as seeming virtues, and ascribe to anything pre-Christian an
   inner value only so far as it had an inner reference to faith in
   Christ." Comp. also Baur'sGeschichte der christl. Kirche vom 4-6ten
   Jahrhundert, p. 153 ff. Neanderrepresents Augustine's doctrine on
   heathen virtue thus (Church History, vol. iv. 1161, 2d Germ. ed., or
   vol. ii. p. 620, in Torrey's translation): "Augustinevery justly
   distinguishes the patriotism of the ancients from that which is to be
   called 'virtue,' in the genuinely Christian sense, and which depends on
   the disposition towards God (virtus from virtus vera); but then he goes
   so far as to overlook altogether what bears some relationship to the
   divine life in such occasional coruscations of the moral element of
   human nature, and to see in them nothing but a service done for evil
   spirits and for man's glory. He contributed greatly, on this particular
   side, to promote in the Western church the partial and contracted way
   of judging the ancient pagan times, as opposed to the more liberal
   Alexandrian views of which we still find traces in many of the
   Orientals in this period, and to which Augustinehimself, in the earlier
   part of his life, as a Platonist, had been inclined. Still the vestiges
   of his earlier and loftier mode of thinking are to be discerned in his
   later writings, where he searches after and recognizes the scattered
   fragments of truth and goodness in the pagan literature, which he
   uniformly traces to the revelation of the Spirit, who is the original
   source of all that is true and good, to created minds; though this is
   inconsistent with his own theory respecting the total corruption of
   human nature, and with the particularism of his doctrine of
   predestination."

   [1828]  Comp. De peccat. orig. c. 24 (§ 28, tom. x. f. 265), where he
   asserts that the grace and faith of Christ operated even unconsciously
   "sive in eis justis quos sancta Scriptura commemorat, sive in eis
   justis quos quidem illa non commemorat, sed tamen fuisse credendi sunt,
   vel ante diluvium, vel inde usque ad legem datam, vel ipsius legis
   tempore, non solum in filiis Israel, sicut fuerant prophetae, sed
   etiamextra eundem sicut, fuit Job. Et ipsorum enim corda eadem
   mundabantur mediators fide, et diffundebatur in eis caritas per
   Spiritum Sanctum, qui ubi vult spirat, non merita sequens, sed etiam
   ipsa merita faciens."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 157. Augustine's Doctrine of Redeeming Grace.

   Augustine reaches his peculiar doctrine of redeeming grace in two ways.
   First he reasons upwards from below, by the law of contrast; that is,
   from his view of the utter incompetency of the unregenerated man to do
   good. The greater the corruption, the mightier must be the remedial
   principle. The doctrine of grace is thus only the positive counterpart
   of the doctrine of sin. In the second place he reasons downwards from
   above; that is, from his conception of the all-working, all-penetrating
   presence of God in natural life, and much more in the spiritual. While
   Pelagius deistically severs God and the world after the creation, and
   places man on an independent footing, Augustine, even before this
   controversy, was, through his speculative genius and the earnest
   experience of his life, deeply penetrated with a sense of the absolute
   dependence of the creature on the Creator, in whom we live, and move,
   and have our being. But Augustine's impression of the immanence of God
   in the world has nothing pantheistic; it does not tempt him to deny the
   transcendence of God and his absolute independence of the world. Guided
   by the Holy Scriptures, he maintains the true mean between deism and
   pantheism. In the very beginning of his Confessions [1829] he says very
   beautifully: 'How shall I call on my God, on my God and Lord? Into
   myself must I call Him, if I call on Him; and what place is there in
   me, where my God may enter into me, the God, who created heaven and
   earth? O Lord my God, is there anything in me, that contains Thee? Do
   heaven and earth contain Thee, which Thou hast created, in which Thou
   didst create me? Or does all that is, contain Thee, because without
   Thee there had existed nothing that is? Because then I also am, do I
   supplicate Thee, that Thou wouldst come into me, I, who had not in any
   wise been, if Thou wert not in me? I yet live, I do not yet sink into
   the lower world, and yet Thou art there. If I made my bed in hell,
   behold, Thou art there. I were not, then, O my God, I utterly were not,
   if Thou wert not in me. Yea, still more, I were not, O my God, if I
   were not in Thee, from whom all, in whom all, through whom all is. Even
   so, Lord, even so." In short, man is nothing without God, and
   everything in and through God. The undercurrent of this sentiment could
   not but carry this father onward to all the views he developed in
   opposition to the Pelagian heresy.

   While Pelagius widened the idea of grace to indefiniteness, and reduced
   it to a medley of natural gifts, law, gospel, forgiveness of sins,
   enlightenment, and example, Augustine restricted grace to the
   specifically Christian sphere (and, therefore, called it gratia
   Christi), though admitting its operation previous to Christ among the
   saints of the Jewish dispensation; but within this sphere he gave it
   incomparably greater depth. With him grace is, first of all, a creative
   power of God in Christ transforming men from within. It produces first
   the negative effect of forgiveness of sins, removing the hindrance to
   communion with God; then the positive communication of a new principle
   of life. The two are combined in the idea of justification, which, as
   we have already remarked, Augustine holds, not in the Protestant sense
   of declaring righteous once for all, but in the Catholic sense of
   gradually making righteous; thus substantially identifying it with
   sanctification. [1830] Yet, as he refers this whole process to divine
   grace, to the exclusion of all human merit, he stands on essentially
   Evangelical ground. [1831] As we inherit from the first Adam our sinful
   and mortal life, so the second Adam implants in us, from God, and in
   God, the germ of a sinless and immortal life. Positive grace operates,
   therefore, not merely from without upon our intelligence by instruction
   and admonition, as Pelagius taught, but also in the centre of our
   personality, imparting to the will the power to do the good which the
   instruction teaches, and to imitate the example of Christ. [1832] Hence
   he frequently calls it the inspiration of a good will, or of love,
   which is the fulfilling of the law. [1833] "Him that wills not, grace
   comes to meet, that he may will; him that wills, she follows up, that
   he may not will in vain." [1834] Faith itself is an effect of grace;
   indeed, its first and fundamental effect, which provides for all
   others, and manifests itself in love. He had formerly held faith to be
   a work of man (as, in fact, though not exclusively, the capacity of
   faith, or receptivity for the divine, may be said to be); but he was
   afterwards led, particularly by the words of Paul in 1 Cor. iv. 7:
   "What hast thou, that thou hast not received?" to change his view.
   [1835] In a word, grace is the breath and blood of the new man; from it
   proceeds all that is truly good and divine, and without it we can do
   nothing acceptable to God.

   From this fundamental conception of grace arise the several properties
   which Augustine ascribes to it in opposition to Pelagius:

   First, it is absolutely necessary to Christian virtue; not merely
   auxiliary, but indispensable, to its existence. It is necessary "for
   every good act, for every good thought, for every good word of man at
   every moment." Without it the Christian life can neither begin,
   proceed, nor be consummated. It was necessary even under the old
   dispensation, which contained the gospel in the form of promise. The
   saints before Christ lived of His grace by anticipation. "They stood,"
   says Augustine, "not under the terrifying, convicting, punishing law,
   but under that grace which fills the heart with joy in what is good,
   which heals it, and makes it free." [1836]

   It is, moreover, unmerited. Gratia would be no gratia if it were not
   gratuita, gratis data. [1837] As man without grace can do nothing good,
   he is, of course, incapable of deserving grace; for, to deserve grace,
   he must do something good. "What merits could we have, while as yet we
   did not love God? That the love with which we should love might be
   created, we have been loved, while as yet we had not that love. Never
   should we have found strength to love God, except as we received such a
   love from Him who had loved us before, and because He had loved us
   before. And, without such a love, what good could we do? Or, how could
   we not do good, with such a love?" "The Holy Spirit breathes where He
   will, and does not follow merits, but Himself produces the merits!
   [1838] Grace, therefore, is not bestowed on man because he already
   believes, but that he may believe; not because he has deserved it by
   good works, but that he may deserve good works." Pelagius reverses the
   natural relation by making the cause the effect, and the effect the
   cause. The ground of our salvation can only be found in God Himself, if
   He is to remain immutable. Augustine appeals to examples of pardoned
   sinners, "where not only no good deserts, but even evil deserts, had
   preceded." Thus the apostle Paul, "averse to the faith, which he
   wasted, and vehemently inflamed against it, was suddenly converted to
   that faith by the prevailing power of grace, and that in such wise that
   he was changed not only from an enemy to a friend, but from a
   persecutor to a sufferer of persecution for the sake of the faith he
   had once destroyed. For to him it was given by Christ, not only to
   believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake." He also points to
   children, who without will, and therefore without voluntary merit
   preceding, are through holy baptism incorporated in the kingdom of
   grace. [1839] His own experience, finally, afforded him an argument, to
   him irrefutable, for the free, undeserved compassion of God. And if in
   other passages he speaks of merits, he means good works which the Holy
   Ghost effects in man, and which God graciously rewards, so that eternal
   life is grace for grace. "If all thy merits are gifts of God, God
   crowns thy merits not as thy merits, but as the gifts of his grace."
   [1840]

   Grace is irresistible in its effect; not, indeed, in the way of
   physical constraint imposed on the will, but as a moral power, which
   makes man willing, and which infallibly attains its end, the conversion
   and final perfection of its subject. [1841] This point is closely
   connected with Augustine's whole doctrine of predestination, and
   consistently leads to it or follows from it. Hence the Pelagians
   repeatedly raised the charge that Augustine, under the name of grace,
   introduced a certain fatalism. But the irresistibility must manifestly
   not be extended to all the influences of grace; for the Bible often
   speaks of grieving, quenching, lying to, and blaspheming the Holy
   Ghost, and so implies that grace may be resisted; and it presents many
   living examples of such resistance. It cannot be denied, that Saul,
   Solomon, Ananias, and Sapphira, and even the traitor Judas, were under
   the influence of divine grace, and repelled it. Augustine, therefore,
   must make irresistible grace identical with the specific grace of
   regeneration in the elect, which at the same time imparts the donum
   perseverantiae. [1842]

   Grace, finally, works progressively or by degrees. It removes all the
   consequences of the fall; but it removes them in an order agreeable to
   the finite, gradually unfolding nature of the believer. Grace is a
   foster-mother, who for the greatest good of her charge, wisely and
   lovingly accommodates herself to his necessities as they change from
   time to time. Augustine gives different names to grace in these
   different steps of its development. In overcoming the resisting will,
   and imparting a living knowledge of sin and longing for redemption,
   grace is gratia praeveniens or praeparans. In creating faith and the
   free will to do good, and uniting the soul to Christ, it is gratia
   operans. Joining with the emancipated will to combat the remains of
   evil, and bringing forth good works as fruits of faith, it is gratia
   cooperans. Finally, in enabling the believer to persevere in faith to
   the end, and leading him at length, though not in this life, to the
   perfect state, in which he can no longer sin nor die, it is gratia
   perficiens. [1843] This includes the donum perseverantiae, which is the
   only certain token of election. [1844] "We call ourselves elect, or
   children of God, because we so call all those whom we see regenerate,
   visibly leading a holy life. But he alone is in truth what he is
   called, who perseveres in that from which he receives the name."
   Therefore so long as a man yet lives, we can form no certain judgment
   of him in this respect. Perseverance till death, i.e., to the point
   where the danger of apostasy ceases, is emphatically a grace, "since it
   is much harder to possess this gift of grace than any other; though for
   him to whom nothing is hard, it is as easy to bestow the one as the
   other."

   And as to the relation of grace to freedom: Neither excludes the other,
   though they might appear to conflict. In Augustine's system freedom, or
   self-determination to good, is the correlative in man of grace on the
   part of God. The more grace, the more freedom to do good, and the more
   joy in the good. The two are one in the idea of love, which is
   objective and subjective, passive and active, an apprehending and a
   being apprehended. [1845]

   We may sum up the Augustinian anthropology under these three heads:

   1. The Primitive State: Immediate, undeveloped unity of man with God;
   child-like innocence; germ and condition of everything subsequent;
   possibility of a sinless and a sinful development.

   2. The State of Sin: Alienation from God; bondage; dominion of death;
   with longing after redemption.

   3. The State of Redemption or of Grace: Higher, mediated unity with
   God; virtue approved through conflict; the blessed freedom of the
   children of God; here, indeed, yet clogged with the remains of sin and
   death, but hereafter absolutely perfect, without the possibility of
   apostasy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1829]  Liber i. c. 2.

   [1830]  De spiritu et litera, c. 26 (tom. x. f. 109): "Quid est enim
   aliud, justificati, quam justi facti, ab illo scilicet qui justificat
   impium, ut ex impio fiat justus?" Retract. ii. 33: "Justificamur gratia
   Dei, hoc est justi efficimur."

   [1831]  Comp. De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 8 (§ 19), and many other
   places, where he ascribes fides, caritas, omnia bona opera, and vita
   aeterna to the free, unmerited grace of God.

   [1832]  "Non lege atque doctrina insonante forinsecus, sed interna et
   occulta, mirabili ac ineffabili potestate operatur Deus in cordibus
   hominum non solum veras revelationes, sed bonas etiam voluntates." De
   grat. Christi, cap. 24 (x. f. 24).

   [1833]  De corrept. et grat. cap. 2 (x. 751): "Inspiratio bonae
   voluntatis atque operis." Without this grace men can "nullum prorsus
   sive cogitando, sive volendo et amando, sive agendo facere bonum."
   Elsewhere he calls it also, "inspiratio dilectionis" and "caritatis."
   C. duas Epist. Pel. iv., and De gratia Christi, 39.

   [1834]  "Nolentem praevenit, ut velit; volentem subsequitur, ne frustra
   velit." Enchir. c. 82.

   [1835]  Comp. Retract i. c. 23; De dono perseverantiae, c. 20, and De
   praedest. c. 2.

   [1836]  "Erant tamen et legis tempore homines Dei, non sub lege
   terrente, convincente, puniente, sed sub gratia delectante, sanante,
   liberante." De grat. Christi et de peccato origin. l. ii. c. 25 (§ 29).

   [1837]  Comp. De gestis Pelagii, § 33 (x. 210); De pecc. orig. § 28 (x.
   265): "Non Dei gratia erit ullo modo, nisi gratuita fuerit omni modo."
   In many other passages he says: gratia gratis datur; gratia praecedit
   bona opera; gratia praecedit merita; gratia indignis datur.

   [1838]  De pecc. orig. § 28 (x. 265): "Et ipsorum [prophetarum] corda
   eadem mundabantur mediatoris fide, et diffundebatur in eis caritas per
   Spiritum Sanctum, qui ubi vult spirat, non merita sequens, sed etiam
   ipsa merita faciens."

   [1839]  De gratia et libero arbitrio, cap. 22 (§ 44, tom. x. f. 742).
   Parvuli, he says, have no will to receive grace, nay, often struggle
   with tears against being baptized, "quod eis ad magnum impietatis
   peccatum imputaretur, si jam libero uterentur arbitrio: et tamen haeret
   etiam in reluctantibus gratia, apertissime nullo bono merito
   praecedente, alioquin gratia jam non esset gratia." He then calls
   attention to the fact that grace is sometimes bestowed on children of
   unbelievers, and is withheld from many children of believers.

   [1840]  De grat. et lib. arbitrio, c. 6 (f. 726), where Augustine, from
   passages like James i. 17; John iii. 27; Eph. ii. 8, draws the
   conclusion: "Si ergo Dei dona sunt bona merita tua, non Deus coronat
   merita tua tamquam merita tua, sed tamquam dona sua."

   [1841]  "Subventum est infirmitati voluntatis humanae, ut divina gratia
   indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter [not inseparabiliter, as the Jesuit
   edition of Louvain, 1577, reads] ageretur; et ideo, quamvis infirma,
   non tamen deficeret, neque adversitate aliqua vinceretur." De corrept.
   et grat. § 38 (tom. x. p. 771).

   [1842]  It is in this sense that the Calvinistic theologians have
   always understood the Augustinian system, especially the Presbyterians.
   So, e.g., Dr. Cunningham(l.c. vol. ii. p. 352): "Augustine, in
   asserting the invincibility or irresistibility of grace, did not
   mean--and those who in subsequent times have embraced this general
   system of doctrine as scriptural, did not intend to convey the
   idea--that man was compelled to do that which was good, or that he was
   forced to repent and believe against his will, whether he would or not,
   as the doctrine is commonly misrepresented, but merely that he was
   certainly and effectually made willing, by the renovation of his will
   through the power of God, whenever that power was put forth in a
   measure Sufficient and Adequate to produce the result. Augustine, and
   those who have adopted his system, did not mean to deny that men may,
   in some sense and to some extent, resist the Spirit, the possibility of
   which is clearly indicated in Scripture; inasmuch as they have most
   commonly held that, to use the language of our [the Westminster]
   Confession, 'persons who are not elected and who finally perish, may
   have some common operations of the Spirit,' which, of course, they
   resist and throw off." Similarly Dr. Shedd(Hist. of Doct. vol. ii. 73),
   who, however, extends irresistible grace to all the regenerate. "Not
   all grace," he says, "but the grace which actually regenerates,
   Augustinedenominates irresistible. By this he meant, not that the human
   will is converted unwillingly or by compulsion, but that divine grace
   is able to overcome the utmost obstinacy of the human spirit. ...
   Divine grace is irresistible, not in the sense that no form of grace is
   resisted by the sinner; but when grace reaches that special degree
   which constitutes it regenerating, it then overcomes the sinner's
   opposition, and makes him willing in the day of God's power." This is
   Calvinistic, but not Augustinian, although given as Augustine's view.
   For according to Augustineall the baptized are regenerate, and yet many
   are eternally lost. (Comp. Ep. 98, 2; De pecc. mer. et rem. i. 39, and
   the passages in Hagenbach's Doctrine History, vol. i. p. 358 ff. in the
   Anglo-American edition.) The gratia irresistiblis must therefore be
   restricted to the narrower circle of the electi. Augustine's doctrine
   of baptism is far more Lutheran and Catholic than Calvinistic.
   According to Calvin, the regenerating effect of baptism is dependent on
   the decretum divinum, and the truly regenerate is also elect, and
   therefore can never finally fall from grace. Augustine, for the honor
   of the sacrament, assumes the possibility of a fruitless regeneration;
   Calvin, in the interest of election and regeneration, assumes the
   possibility of an ineffectual baptism.

   [1843]  Summing all the stages together, Augustinesays: "Et quis istam
   etsi parvam dare coeperat caritatem, nisi ille qui praeparat
   voluntatem, et coöperando perficit, quod operando incipit? Quoniam ipse
   ut velimus operatur incipiens qui volentibus coöperatur perficiens.
   Propter quod ait Apostolus: Certus sum, quoniam qui operatur in vobis
   opus bonum, perficiet usque in diem Christi Jesu" (Phil. i. 6)). De
   grat. et lib. arbitr. c. 27, § 33 (tom. x. 735).

   [1844]  Augustinetreats of this in the Liber de dono persevemntiae, one
   of his latest writings, composed in 428 or 429 (tom. x. f. 821 sqq.).

   [1845]  Comp. upon this especially the book De gratia et libero
   arbitrio, which Augustinewrote a.d.426, addressed to Valentinus and
   other monks of Adrumetum, to refute the false reasoning of those, "qui
   sic gratiam Dei defendunt, ut negent hominis liberum arbitrium" (c. 1,
   tom. x. f. 717).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 158. The Doctrine of Predestination.

   I. Augustinus: De praedestinatione sanctorum ad Prosperum et Hilarium
   (written a.d. 428 or 429 against the Semi-Pelagians); De dono
   perseverantiae (written in the same year and against the same
   opponents); De gratia et libero arbitrio (written a.d. 426 or 427 ad
   Valentinum et Monachos Adrumetinos); De correptione et gratia (written
   to the same persons and in the same year).

   II Corn. Jansenius: Augustinus. Lovan. 1640, tom. iii. Jac. Sirmond
   (Jesuit): Historia praedestinatiana. Par. 1648 (and in his Opera, tom.
   iv. p. 271). Carl Beck: Die Augustinische, Calvinistische und
   Lutherische Lehre von der Praedestination aus den Quellen dargestellt
   und mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Schleiermacher's Erwählungslehre
   comparativ beurtheilt. "Studien und Kritiken," 1847. J. B. Mozley:
   Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination. Lond. 1855.

   Augustine did not stop with this doctrine of sin and grace. He pursued
   his anthropology and soteriology to their source in theology. His
   personal experience of the wonderful and undeserved grace of God,
   various passages of the Scriptures, especially the Epistle to the
   Romans, and the logical connection of thought, led him to the doctrine
   of the unconditional and eternal purpose of the omniscient and
   omnipotent God. In this he found the programme of the history of the
   fall and redemption of the human race. He ventured boldly, but
   reverentially, upon the brink of that abyss of speculation, where all
   human knowledge is lost in mystery and in adoration.

   Predestination, in general, is a necessary attribute of the divine
   will, as foreknowledge is an attribute of the divine intelligence;
   though, strictly speaking, we cannot predicate of God either a before
   or an after, and with him all is eternal present. It is absolutely
   inconceivable that God created the world or man blindly, without a
   fixed plan, or that this plan can be disturbed or hindered in any way
   by his creatures. Besides, there prevails everywhere, even in the
   natural life of man, in the distribution of mental gifts and earthly
   blessings, and yet much more in the realm of grace, a higher guidance,
   which is wholly independent of our will or act. Who is not obliged, in
   his birth in this or that place, at this or that time, under these or
   those circumstances, in all the epochs of his existence, in all his
   opportunities of education, and above all in his regeneration and
   sanctification, to recognize and adore the providence and the free
   grace of God? The further we are advanced in the Christian life, the
   less are we inclined to attribute any merit to ourselves, and the more
   to thank God for all. The believer not only looks forward into eternal
   life, but also backward into the ante-mundane eternity, and finds in
   the eternal purpose of divine love the beginning and the firm anchorage
   of his salvation. [1846]

   So far we may say every reflecting Christian must believe in some sort
   of election by free grace; and, in fact, the Holy Scriptures are full
   of it. But up to the time of Augustine the doctrine had never been an
   object of any very profound inquiry, and had therefore never been
   accurately defined, but only very superficially and casually touched.
   The Greek fathers, and Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, and Pelagius, had
   only taught a conditional predestination, which they made dependent on
   the foreknowledge of the free acts of men. In this, as in his views of
   sin and grace, Augustine went far beyond the earlier divines, taught an
   unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purpose of
   redemption to a definite circle of the elect, who constitute the
   minority of the race. [1847]

   In Augustine's system the doctrine of predestination is not, as in
   Calvin's, the starting-point, but the consummation. It is a deduction
   from his views of sin and grace. It is therefore more practical than
   speculative. It is held in check by his sacramental views. If we may
   anticipate a much later terminology, it moves within the limits of
   infralapsarianism, but philosophically is less consistent than
   supralapsarianism. While the infralapsarian theory, starting with the
   consciousness of sin, excludes the fall--the most momentous event,
   except redemption, in the history of the world--from the divine
   purpose, and places it under the category of divine permission, making
   it dependent on the free will of the first man; the supralapsarian
   theory, starting with the conception of the absolute sovereignty of
   God, includes the fall of Adam in the eternal and unchangeable plan of
   God, though, of course, not as an end, or for its own sake (which would
   be blasphemy), but as a temporary means to an opposite end, or as the
   negative condition of a revelation of the divine justice in the
   reprobate, and of the divine grace in the elect. Augustine, therefore,
   strictly speaking, knows nothing of a double decree of election and
   reprobation, but recognizes simply a decree of election to salvation;
   though logical instinct does sometimes carry him to the verge of
   supralapsarianism. In both systems, however, the decree is eternal,
   unconditioned, and immutable; the difference is in the subject, which,
   according to one system, is man fallen, according to the other, man as
   such. It was a noble, inconsistency which kept Augustine from the more
   stringent and speculative system of supralapsarianism; his deep moral
   convictions revolted against making any allowance for sin by tracing
   its origin to the divine will; and by his peculiar view of the
   inseparable connection between Adam and the race, he could make every
   man as it were individually responsible for the fall of Adam. But the
   Pelagians, who denied this connection, charged him with teaching a kind
   of fatalism.

   The first sin, according to Augustine's theory, was an act of freedom,
   which could and should have been avoided. But once committed, it
   subjected the whole race, which was germinally in the loins of Adam, to
   the punitive justice of God. All men are only a mass of perdition,
   [1848] and deserve, both for their innate and their actual sin,
   temporal and eternal death. God is but just, if He leave a great
   portion, nay (if all heathen and unbaptized children are lost), the
   greatest portion, of mankind to their deserved fate. But He has
   resolved from eternity to reveal in some His grace, by rescuing them
   from the mass of perdition, and without their merit saving them.

   This is the election of grace, or predestination. It is related to
   grace itself, as cause to effect, as preparation to execution. [1849]
   It is the ultimate, unfathomable ground of salvation. It is
   distinguished from foreknowledge, as will from intelligence; it always
   implies intelligence, but is not always implied in it. [1850] God
   determines and knows beforehand what He will do; the fall of man, and
   the individual sins of men, He knows perfectly even from eternity, but
   He does not determine or will them, He only permits them. There is thus
   a point, where prescience is independent of predestination, and where
   human freedom, as it were, is interposed. (Here lies the philosophical
   weakness, but, on the other hand, the ethical strength of the
   infralapsarian system, as compared with the supralapsarian). The
   predetermination has reference only to good, not to evil. It is
   equivalent to election, while predestination, in the supralapsarian
   scheme, includes the decretum electionis and the decretum
   reprobationis. Augustine, it is true, speaks also in some places of a
   predestination to perdition (in consequence of sin), but never of a
   predestination to sin. [1851] The election of grace is conditioned by
   no foreseen merit, but is absolutely free. God does not predestinate
   His children on account of their faith, for their faith is itself a
   gift of grace; but He predestinates them to faith and to holiness.
   [1852]

   Thus also the imputation of teaching that a man may be elect, and yet
   live a godless life, is precluded. [1853] Sanctification is the
   infallible effect of election. Those who are thus predestinated as
   vessels of mercy, may fall for a while, like David and Peter, but
   cannot finally fall from grace. They must at last be saved by, the
   successive steps of vocation, justification, and glorification, as
   certainly as God is almighty and His promises Yea and Amen; [1854]
   while the vessels of wrath are lost through their own fault. To
   election necessarily belongs the gift of perseverance, the donum
   perseverantiae, which is attested by a happy death. Those who fall
   away, even though they have been baptized and regenerated, show
   thereby, that they never belonged to the number of the elect. [1855]
   Hence we cannot certainly know in this life who are of the elect, and
   we must call all to repentance and offer to all salvation, though the
   vocation of grace only proves effectual to some.

   Augustine, as, already remarked, deduced this doctrine from his view of
   sin. If all men are by nature utterly incompetent to good, if it is
   grace that works in us to will and to do good, if faith itself is an
   undeserved gift of grace: the ultimate ground of salvation can then be
   found only in the inscrutable counsel of God. He appealed to the
   wonderful leadings in the lives of individuals and of nations, some
   being called to the gospel and to baptism, while others die in
   darkness. Why precisely this or that one attains to faith and others do
   not, is, indeed, a mystery. We cannot, says he, in this life explain
   the readings of Providence; if we only believe that God is righteous,
   we shall hereafter attain to perfect knowledge.

   He could cite many Scripture texts, especially the ninth chapter of the
   Epistle to the Romans, for his doctrine. But other texts, which teach
   the universal vocation to salvation, and make man responsible for his
   reception or rejection of the gospel, he could only explain by forced
   interpretations. Thus, for instance, be understands in 1 Tim. ii. 4 by
   the all men, whom God will have to be saved, all manner of men, rich
   and poor, learned and unlearned, or he wrests the sense into: All who
   are saved, are saved only by the will of God. [1856] When he finds no
   other way of meeting objections, be appeals to the inscrutable wisdom
   of God.

   Augustine's doctrine of predestination was the immediate occasion of a
   theological controversy which lasted almost a hundred years, developed
   almost every argument for and against the doctrine, and called forth a
   system holding middle ground, to which we now turn.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1846]  Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 4.

   [1847]  Comp. the opinions of the pre-Augustinian fathers respecting
   grace, predestination, and the extent of redemption, as given in detail
   in Wiggers, i. p. 440 ff. He says, p. 448: "In reference to
   predestination, the fathers before Augustinewere entirely at variance
   with him, and in agreement with Pelagius. They, like Pelagius, founded
   predestination upon prescience, upon the fore-knowledge of God, as to
   who would make themselves worthy or unworthy of salvation. They assume,
   therefore, not the unconditional predestination of Augustine, but the
   conditional predestination of the Pelagians. The Massilians had,
   therefore, a full right to affirm (Aug. Ep. 225), that Augustine's
   doctrine of predestination was opposed to the opinions of the fathers
   and the sense of the church (ecclesiastico sensui), and that no
   ecclesiastical author had ever yet explained the Epistle to the Romans
   as Augustinedid, or in such a way as to derive from it a grace that had
   no respect to the merits of the elect. And it was only by a doubtful
   inference (De dono pers. 19) that Augustineendeavored to prove that
   Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzen had known and received his view
   of predestination, by appealing to the agreement between this doctrine
   and their theory of grace." Pelagius says of predestination in his
   Commentary on Rom. viii. 29 and ix. 80: "Quos praevidit conformes esse
   in vita, voluit ut fierent conformes in gloria. .... Quos praescivit
   credituros, hos vocavit, vocatio autem volentes colligit, non invitos."

   [1848]  Massa perditionis, a favorite expression of Augustine.

   [1849]  De praedest. Sanct. c. 10 (or § 19, tom. x f. 803): "Inter
   gratiam et praedestinationem hoc tantum interest, quod praedestinatio
   eat gratiae praeparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio. Quod itaque ait
   apostolus: Non ex operibus ne forte quis extollatur, ipsius enim sumus
   figmentum, creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis (Eph. ii. 9),
   gratia est; quod autem sequitur: Quae praeparavit Deus, ut in illis
   ambulamus, praedestinatio est, quae sine praescientia non potest esse."
   Further on in the same chapter: "Gratia est ipsius praedestinationis
   effectus."

   [1850]  De praed. sanctorum, cap. 10: "Praedestinatio ... sine
   praescientia non potest esse; potest autem esse sine praedestinatione
   praescientia. Praedestinatione quippe Deus ea praescivit, quod fuerat
   ipse facturus ... praescire autem potens est etiam quae ipse non facit,
   sicut quaecumque peccata." Comp. De dono perseverantiae, c. 18 (f847
   sq.).

   [1851]  De anima et ejus origine (written a.d.419), l. iv. c. 11 (or §
   16, tom. x. f 395): "Ex uno homine omnes homines ire in condemnationem
   qui nascuntur ex Adam, nisi ita renascantur in Christo ... quos
   praedestinavit ad aeternam vitam misericordissimus gratiae largitor:
   qui eat et illis quos praedestinavit ad aeternam mortem, justissimus
   supplicii retributor." Comp. Tract. in Joann. xlviii. 4: "ad
   sempiternum interitum praedestinatos," and similar passages.

   [1852]  De praed. sanct. c. 18 (§ 37, x. f. 815): "Elegit ergo nos Deus
   in Christo ante mundi constitutionem, praedestinans nos in adoptionem
   filiorum: non quia per nos sancti et immaculati futuri eramus, sed
   elegit praedestinavitque ut essemus." Augustinethen goes on to attack
   the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian theory of a predestination conditioned
   upon the foreseen holiness of the creature. Cap. 19 (§ 38): "Nec quia
   credidimus, sed ut credamus, vocamur."

   [1853]  This imputation of some monks of Adrumetum in Tunis is met by
   Augustineparticularly in his treatise De correptione et gratia
   (a.d.427), in which he shows that as gratia and the liberum arbitrium,
   so also correptio and gratia, admonition and grace, are by no means
   mutually exclusive, but rather mutually condition each other.

   [1854]  De corrept. et grat. c. 7 (§ 14): "Nemo eorum [electorum]
   perit, quia non fallitur Deus. Horum si quisquam perit, vitio humano
   vincitur Deus; sed nemo eorum perit, quia nulla re vincitur Deus."
   Ibid. c. 9 (§ 23, f. 763): "Quicunque ergo in Dei providentissima
   dispositione praesciti, praedestinati, vocati, justificati, glorificati
   sunt, non dico etiam nondum renati, sed etiam nondum nati, jam filii
   Dei sunt, et omnino perire non possunt." For this he appeals to Rom.
   viii. 31 ff.; John vi. 37, 39, etc.

   [1855]  De corrept. et gratia, c. 9 (§ 23, x. f. 763): "Ab illo [Deo]
   datur etiam perseverantia in bono usque in finem; neque enim datur nisi
   eis qui non peribunt: quoniam qui non perseverant peribunt." Ibid. c.
   11 (§ 36, f. 770): "Qui autem cadunt et pereunt, in praedestinatorum
   numero non fuerunt."

   [1856]  Opus imperf. iv. 124; De corrept. et gratia, i. 28; De praed.
   sanct. 8; Enchir. c. 103; Epist. 217, c. 6. Comp. Wiggers, l.c. pp. 365
   and 463 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 159. Semi-Pelagianism.

   Comp. the Works at § 146.

   Sources.

   I. Joh. Cassianus ( 432): Collationes Patrum xxiv, especially the xiii.
   In the Opera omnia, cum commentaries D. Alardi Gazaei (Gazet), Atrebati
   (Atrecht or Arras in France), 1628 and 1733; reprinted, with additions,
   in Migne's Patrologia, tom. xlix. and l. (tom. i. pp. 478-1328), and
   also published several times separately. Vincentius Lirinsis ( 450),
   Faustus Rhegiensis ( 490-500), and other Semi-Pelagian writers, see
   Gallandi, Biblioth. tom. x., and Migne, Patrol. tom. l. and liii.

   II. Augustinus: De gratia et libero arbitrio; De correptione et gratia;
   De praedestinatione Sanctorum; De dono perseverantiae (all in the 10th
   vol. of the Benedict. ed.). Prosper Aquitanus (a disciple and admirer
   of Augustine, 460): Epistola ad Augustinum de reliquiis Pelagianae
   haereseos in Gallia (Aug. Ep. 225, and in Opera Aug. tom. x. 780), and
   De gratia et libero arbitrio (contra Collatorem). Hilarius: Ad
   Augustinum de eodem argumento (Ep. 226 among the Epp. Aug., and in tom.
   x. 783). Also the Augustinian writings of Avitus of Vienne, Caesarius
   of Arles, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and others. (Comp. Gallandi, Bibl. tom.
   xi.; Migne, Patrol. vol. li.)

   The Acta of the Synod of Orange, a.d. 529, in Mansi, tom. viii. 711
   sqq.

   Literature.

   Jac. Sirmond: Historia praedestinatiana. Par. 1648. Johann Geffken:
   Historia Semipelagianismi antiquissima (more properly antiquissimi).
   Gott. 1826 (only goes to the year 434). G. Fr. Wiggers: Versuch einer
   pragmatischen Darstellung des Semipelagianismus in seinem Kampfe gegen
   den Augustinismus his zur zweiten Synode zu Orange. Hamburg, 1833 (the
   second part of his already cited work upon Augustinianism and
   Pelagianism). A very thorough work, but unfortunately without index.
   Comp, also Walch, Schröckh, and the appropriate portions of the later
   works upon the history of the church and of doctrines.

   Semi-Pelagianism is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at
   reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of
   Pelagius and Augustine, taking off the edge of each, and inclining now
   to the one, now to the other. The name was introduced during the
   scholastic age, but the system of doctrine, in all essential points,
   was formed in Southern France in the fifth century, during the latter
   years of Augustine's life and soon after his death. It proceeded from
   the combined influence of the pre-Augustinian synergism and monastic
   legalism. Its leading idea is, that divine grace and the human will
   jointly accomplish the work of conversion and sanctification, and that
   ordinarily man must take the first step. It rejects the Pelagian
   doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the
   Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the
   natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state
   of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as
   a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the
   Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistibleness, and
   limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal
   operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement
   through Christ, and a predestination to salvation conditioned by the
   foreknowledge of faith. The union of the Pelagian and Augustinian
   elements thus attempted is not, however, an inward organic coalescence,
   but rather a mechanical and arbitrary combination, which really
   satisfies neither the one interest nor the other, but commonly leans to
   the Pelagian side. [1857]

   For this reason it admirably suited the legalistic and ascetic piety of
   the middle age, and indeed always remained within the pale of the
   Catholic church, and never produced a separate sect.

   We glance now at the main features of the origin and progress of this
   school.

   The Pelagian system had been vanquished by Augustine, and rejected and
   condemned as heresy by the church. This result, however, did not in
   itself necessarily imply the complete approval of the Augustinian
   system. Many, even opponents of Pelagius, recoiled from a position so
   wide of the older fathers as Augustine's doctrines of the bondage of
   man and the absolute election of grace, and preferred a middle ground.

   First the monks of the convent of Adrumetum in North Africa differed
   among themselves over the doctrine of predestination; some perverting
   it to carnal security, others plunging from it into anguish and
   desperation, and yet others feeling compelled to lay more stress than
   Augustine upon human freedom and responsibility. Augustine endeavored
   to allay the scruples of these monks by his two treatises, De gratia et
   libero arbitrio, and De correptione et gratia. The abbot Valentinus
   answered these in the name of the monks in a reverent and submissive
   tone. [1858]

   But simultaneously a more dangerous opposition to the doctrine of
   predestination arose in Southern Gaul, in the form of a regular
   theological school within the Catholic church. The members of this
   school were first called "remnants of the Pelagians," [1859] but
   commonly Massilians, from Massilia (Marseilles), their chief centre,
   and afterwards Semi-Pelagians. Augustine received an account of this
   from two learned and pious lay friends, Prosper, and Hilarius, [1860]
   who begged that he himself would take the pen against it. This was the
   occasion of his two works, De praedestinatione sanctorum, and De dono
   perseverentiae, with which he worthily closed his labors as an author.
   He deals with these disputants more gently than with the Pelagians, and
   addresses them as brethren. After his death (430) the discussion was
   continued principally in Gaul; for then North Africa was disquieted by
   the victorious invasion of the Vandals, which for several decades shut
   it out from the circle of theological and ecclesiastical activity.

   At the head of the Semi-Pelagian party stood John Cassian, the founder
   and abbot of the monastery at Massilia, a man of thorough cultivation,
   rich experience, and unquestioned orthodoxy. [1861] He was a grateful
   disciple of Chrysostom, who ordained him deacon, and apparently also
   presbyter. His Greek training and his predilection for monasticism were
   a favorable soil for his Semi-Pelagian theory. He labored awhile in
   Rome with Pelagius, and afterwards in Southern France, in the cause of
   monastic piety, which he efficiently promoted by exhortation and
   example. Monasticism sought in cloistered retreats a protection against
   the allurements of sin, the desolating incursions of the barbarians,
   and the wretchedness of an age of tumult and confusion. But the
   enthusiasm for the monastic life tended strongly to over-value external
   acts and ascetic discipline, and resisted the free evangelical bent of
   the Augustinian theology. Cassian wrote twelve books De coenobiorum
   institutis, in which be first describes the outward life of the monks,
   and then their inward conflicts and victories over the eight capital
   vices: intemperance, unchastity, avarice, anger, sadness, dulness,
   ambition, and pride. More important are his fourteen Collationes
   Patrum, conversations which Cassian and his friend Germanus had had
   with the most experienced ascetics in Egypt, during a seven years'
   sojourn there.

   In this work, especially in the thirteenth Colloquy, [1862] he rejects
   decidedly the errors of Pelagius, [1863] and affirms the universal
   sinfulness of men, the introduction of it by the fall of Adam, and the
   necessity, of divine grace to every individual act. But, with evident
   reference to Augustine, though without naming him, he combats the
   doctrines of election and of the irresistible and particular operation
   of grace, which were in conflict with the church tradition, especially,
   with the Oriental theology, and with his own earnest ascetic legalism.

   In opposition to both systems he taught that the divine image and human
   freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other
   words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help
   himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either
   accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the
   grace of God in his salvation. The question, which of the two factors
   has the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this effect:
   that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human will, as in the cases of
   the Prodigal Son, Zacchaeus, the Penitent Thief, and Cornelius,
   determines itself to conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and,
   as with Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will--yet, even in this
   case, without constraint--to God. [1864] Here, therefore, the gratia
   praeveniens is manifestly overlooked.

   These are essentially Semi-Pelagian principles, though capable of
   various modifications and applications. The church, even the Roman
   church, has rightly emphasized the necessity of prevenient grace, but
   has not impeached Cassian, who is properly the father of the
   Semi-Pelagian theory. Leo the Great even commissioned him to write a
   work against Nestorianism, [1865] in which he found an excellent
   opportunity to establish his orthodoxy, and to clear himself of all
   connection with the kindred heresies of Pelagianism and Nestorianism,
   which were condemned together at Ephesus in 431. He died after 432, at
   an advanced age, and though not formally canonized, is honored as a
   saint by some dioceses. His works are very extensively read for
   practical edification.

   Against the thirteenth Colloquy of Cassian, Prosper Aquitanus, an
   Augustinian divine and poet, who, probably on account of the
   desolations of the Vandals, had left his native Aquitania for the South
   of Gaul, and found comfort and repose in the doctrines of election amid
   the wars of his age, wrote a book upon grace and freedom, [1866] about
   432, in which he criticises twelve propositions of Cassian, and
   declares them all heretical, except the first. He also composed a long
   poem in defence of Augustine and his system, [1867] and refuted the
   "Gallic slanders and Vincentian imputations," which placed the doctrine
   of predestination in the most odious light. [1868]

   But the Semi-Pelagian doctrine was the more popular, and made great
   progress in France. Its principal advocates after Cassian are the
   following: the presbyter-monk Vicentius of Lerinum, author of the
   Commonitorium, in which he developed the true catholic test of
   doctrine, the threefold consensus, in covert antagonism to the novel
   doctrines of Augustinianism (about 434); [1869] Faustus, bishop of
   Rhegium (Riez), who at the council of Arles (475) refuted the
   hyper-Augustinian presbyter Lucidus, and was commissioned by the
   council to write a work upon the grace of God and human freedom; [1870]
   Gennadius, presbyter at Marseilles (died after 495), who continued the
   biographical work of Jerome, De viris illustribus, down to 495, and
   attributed Augustine's doctrine of predestination to his itch for
   writing; [1871] Arnobius the younger; [1872] and the much discussed
   anonymous tract Praedestinatus (about 460), which, by gross
   exaggeration, and by an unwarranted imputation of logical results which
   Augustine had expressly forestalled, placed the doctrine of
   predestination in an odious light, and then refuted it. [1873]

   The author of the Praedestinatus says, that a treatise had fallen into
   his hands, which fraudulently bore upon its face the name of the
   Orthodox teacher Augustine, in order to smuggle in, under a Catholic
   name, a blasphemous dogma, pernicious to the faith. On this account he
   had undertaken to transcribe and to refute this work. The treatise
   itself consists of three books; the first, following Augustine's book,
   De haeresibus, gives a description of ninety heresies from Simon Magus
   down to the time of the author, and brings up, as the last of them, the
   doctrine of a double predestination, as a doctrine which makes God the
   author of evil, and renders all the moral endeavors of men fruitless;
   [1874] the second book is the pseudo-Augustinian treatise upon this
   ninetieth heresy, but is apparently merely a Semi-Pelagian caricature
   by the same author; [1875] the third book contains the refutation of
   the thus travestied pseudo-Augustinian doctrine of predestination,
   employing the usual Semi-Pelagian arguments.

   A counterpart to this treatise is found in the also anonymous work, De
   vocatione omnium gentium, which endeavors to commend Augustinianism by
   mitigation, in the same degree that the Praedestinatus endeavors to
   stultify it by exaggeration. [1876] It has been ascribed to pope Leo I.
   ( 461), of whom it would not be unworthy; but it cannot be supposed
   that the work of so distinguished a man could have remained anonymous.
   The author avoids even the term praedestinatio, and teaches expressly,
   that Christ died for all men and would have all to be saved; thus
   rejecting the Augustinian particularism. But, on the other hand, he
   also rejects the Semi-Pelagian principles, and asserts the utter
   inability of the natural man to do good. He unhesitatingly sets grace
   above the human will, and represents the whole life of faith, from
   beginning to end, as a work of unmerited grace. He develops the three
   thoughts, that God desires the salvation of all men; that no one is
   saved by his own merits, but by grace; and that the human understanding
   cannot fathom the depths of divine wisdom. We must trust in the
   righteousness of God. Every one of the damned suffers only the
   righteous punishment of his sins; while no saint can boast himself in
   his merits, since it is only of pure grace that he is saved. But how is
   it with the great multitude of infants that die every year without
   baptism, and without opportunity of coming to the knowledge of
   salvation? The author feels this difficulty, without, however, being
   able to solve it. He calls to his help the representative character of
   parents, and dilutes the Augustinian doctrine of original sin to the
   negative conception of a mere defect of good, which, of course, also
   reduces the idea of hereditary guilt and the damnation of unbaptized
   children. He distinguishes between a general grace which comes to man
   through the external revelation in nature, law, and gospel, and a
   special grace, which effects conversion and regeneration by an inward
   impartation of saving power, and which is only bestowed on those that
   are saved.

   Semi-Pelagianism prevailed in Gaul for several decades. Under the lead
   of Faustus of Rhegium it gained the victory in two synods, at Arles in
   472 and at Lyons in 475, where Augustine's doctrine of predestination
   was condemned, though without mention of his name.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1857]  Wiggers (ii. pp. 359-364) gives a comparative view of the three
   systems in parallel columns. Comp. also the criticism of Baur, Die
   christliche Kirche vom vierten bis zum sechsten Jahrhundert, p. 181 ff.
   The latter, with his wonted sharpness of criticism, judges very
   unfavorably of Semi-Pelagianism as a whole. "This halving and
   neutralizing," he says, p. 199 ff., "this attempt at equal distribution
   of the two complementary elements, not only setting them apart, but
   also balancing them with one another, so that sometimes the one,
   sometimes the other, is predominant, and thus within this whole sphere
   everything is casual and arbitrary, varying and indefinite according to
   the diversity of circumstances and individuals, this is characteristic
   of Semi-Pelagianism throughout. If the two opposing theories cannot be
   inwardly reconciled, at least they must be combined in such a way as
   that a specific element must be taken from each; the Pelagian freedom
   and the Augustinian grace must be advanced to equal rank. But this
   method only gains an external juxtaposition of the two."

   [1858]  His answer is found in the Epistles of Augustine, Ep. 216, and
   in Opera, tom. x. f. 746 (ed. Bened.).

   [1859]  "Reliquiae Pelagianorum." So Prosper calls them in his letter
   to Augustine. He saw in them disguised, and therefore only so much the
   more dangerous, Pelagians.

   [1860]  Not to be confounded with Hilarius, bishop of Arles, in
   distinction from whom he is called Hilarius Prosperi. Hilarycalls
   himself a layman (Aug. Ep. 226, § 9). Comp. the Benedictines in tom. x.
   f. 785; Wiggers, ii. 187).

   [1861]  Wiggers treats thoroughly and at length of him, in the above
   cited monograph, vol. ii. pp. 7-136. He has been mistakenly supposed a
   Scythian. His name and his fluent Latinity indicate an occidental
   origin. Yet he was in part educated at Bethlehem and in Constantinople,
   and spent seven years among the anchorites in Egypt. He mentioned John
   Chrysostomeven in the evening of his life with grateful veneration. (De
   incarn. vii. 30 sq.) "What I have written," he says, "John has taught
   me, and therefore account it not so much mine as his. For a brook rises
   from a spring, and what is ascribed to the pupil, must be reckoned
   wholly to the honor of the teacher." On the life and writings of
   Cassian compare also Schönemann, Bibliotheca, vol. ii. (reprinted in
   Migne's ed. vol. i.).

   [1862]  De protectione Dei. In Migne's edition of Cass. Opera, vol. i.
   pp. 397-964

   [1863]  He calls the Pelagian doctrine of the native ability of man
   "profanam opinionem " (Coll. xiii. 16, in Migne's ed. tom. i. p. 942),
   and even says: "Pelagium paene omnes impietate [probably here
   equivalent to " contempt of grace," as Wiggers, ii. 20, explains it] et
   amentia vicisse " (De incarn. Dom. v. 2, tom. ii. 101).

   [1864]  "Nonnumquam," says he, De institut. coeno b. xii. 18 (Opera,
   vol. ii. p. 456, ed. Migne), "etiam inviti trahimur ad salutem." This
   is, however, according to Cassian, a rare exception. The general
   distinction between Semi-Pelagianism and the Melanchthonian synergism
   may be thus defined, that the former ascribes the initiative in the
   work of conversion to the human will, the latter to divine grace, which
   involves also a different estimate of the importance of the gratia
   praeveniens or praeparans.

   [1865]  De incarnations Christi, libri vii. in Migne's ed. tom. ii.
   9-272.

   [1866]  Found in the works of Prosper, Paris, 1711 (tom. li. in Migne's
   Patrol.), and also in the Appendix to the Opera Augustini (tom. x.
   171-198, ed. Bened.), under the title Pro Augustino, liber contra
   Collatorem. Comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 138 ff.

   [1867]  Carmen de ingratis. He charges the Semi-Pelagians with
   ingratitude to Augustineand his great merits to the cause of religion.

   [1868]  These Responsiones Prosperi Aquitani ad capitula calumniantium
   Gallorum and Ad capitula objectionum Vincentianorum (of Vincentius
   Lirinensis) are also found in the Appendix to the 10th vol. of the
   Benedictine edition of the Opera Augustini, f. 198 sqq. and f. 207 sqq.
   Among the objections of Vincentius are, e.g., the following:
   3. Quia Deus majorem partem generis humani ad hoc creet, ut illam
   perdat in
   aeternum.
   4. Quia major pars generis humani ad hoc creetur a Deo, ut non Dei, sed
   diaboli
   faciat voluntatem.
   10. Quia adulteria et corruptelae virginum sacrarum ideo contingant,
   quia illas
   Deus ad hoc praedestinavit ut caderent.

   [1869]  Comp. above, § 118; also Wiggers, ii. p. 208 ff., and Baur,
   l.c. p. 185 ff, who likewise impute to the Commonitorium a
   Semi-Pelagian tendency. This is beyond doubt, if Vincentius was the
   author of the above-mentioned Objectiones Vincentisanae. Perhaps the
   second part of the Commonitorium, which, except the last chapters, has
   been lost, was specially directed against the Augustinian doctrine of
   predestination, and was on this account destroyed, while the first part
   acquired almost canonical authority in the Catholic church.

   [1870]  De gratia Dei et humanae mentis libero arbitrio (in the
   Biblioth. maxima Patrum, tom. viii.). This work is regarded as the
   ablest defence of Semi-Pelagianism written in that age. Comp. upon it
   Wiggers, ii. p. 224 ff.

   [1871]  De viris illustr. c. 38, where he speaks in other respects
   eulogistically of Augustine. He refers to the passage in Prov. x. 19:
   "In multiloquio non fugies peccatum." Comp. respecting him Wiggers, ii.
   350 ff. and Neander, Dogmengeschichte, i. p. 406. His works are found
   in Migne's Patrol. vol. 58.

   [1872]  In his Commentarius in Psalmos, written about 460, especially
   upon Ps. cxxvii.: "Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum." Some, following
   Sirmond, consider him as the author of the next-mentioned treatise
   Praedestinatus, but without good ground. Comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 348 f.

   [1873]  "Praedestinatus, seu Praedestinatorum haeresis, et libri S.
   Augustino temere adscripti refutatio." The haeresis Praedestinatorum is
   the last of ninety heresies, and consists in the assertion: "Dei
   praedestinatione peccata committi." This work was first discovered by
   J. Sirmond and published at Paris in 1643 (also in Gallandi, Biblioth.
   tom. x. p. 359 sqq., and in Migne's Patrol. tom. liii. p. 587 sqq.,
   together with Sirmond's Historia Praedestinatiana). It occasioned in
   the seventeenth century a lively controversy between the Jesuits and
   the Jansenists, as to whether there had existed a distinct sect of
   Praedestinarians. The author, however, merely feigned such a sect to
   exist, in order to avoid the appearance of attacking Augustine's
   authority. See details in Wiggers, ii. p. 329 ff.; Neander,
   Dogmengeschichte, i. 399 ff.; and Baur, p. 190 ff. The latter says:
   "The treatise [more accurately the second book of it; the whole
   consists of three books] is ascribed to Augustine, but as the
   ascription is immediately after declared false, both assertions are
   evidently made with the purpose of condemning Augustine's doctrine with
   its consequences (only not directly in his name), as one morally most
   worthy of reprobation." Neander ascribes only the first and the third
   book, Baur also the second book, to a Semi-Pelagian.

   [1874]  The first book has also been reprinted in the Corpus
   haereseolog. ed. F. Oehler, tom. i. Berol. 1856, pp. 233-268.

   [1875]  Just as the Capitula Gallorum and the Objectiones Vincentianae
   exaggerate Angustinianism, in order the more easily to refute it.

   [1876]  It is found among the works of Leo I. and also of Prosper
   Aquitanus, but deviates from the views of the latter. Comp. Quesnel's
   learned Dissertationes de auctore libri de vocatione gentium, in the
   second part of his edition of Leo's works, and also Wiggers, ii. p. 218
   ff.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 160. Victory of Semi-Augustinianism. Council of Orange, A.D. 529.

   But these synods were only provincial, and were the cause of a schism.
   In North Africa and in Rome the Augustinian system of doctrine, though
   in a somewhat softened form, attained the ascendency. In the decree
   issued by pope Gelasius in 496 de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis
   (the beginning of an Index librorum prohibitorum), the writings of
   Augustine and Prosper Aquitanus are placed among books ecclesiastically
   sanctioned, those of Cassian and Faustus of Rhegium among the
   apocryphal or forbidden. Even in Gaul it found in the beginning of the
   sixth century very capable and distinguished advocates, especially in
   Avitus, archbishop of Vienne (490523), and Caesarius, archbishop of
   Arles (502-542). Associated with these was Fulgentius of Ruspe ( 533),
   in the name of the sixty African bishops banished by the Vandals and
   then living in Sardinia. [1877]

   The controversy was stirred up anew by the Scythian monks, who in their
   zeal for the Monophysite theopaschitism, abhorred everything connected
   with Nestorianism, and urged first pope Hormisdas, and then with better
   success the exiled African bishops, to procure the condemnation of
   Semi-Pelagianism.

   These transactions terminated at length in the triumph of a moderate
   Augustinianism, or of what might be called Semi-Augustinianism, in
   distinction from Semi-Pelagianism. At the synod of Orange (Arausio) in
   the year 529, at which Caesarius of Arles was leader, the Semi-Pelagian
   system, yet without mention of its adherents, was condemned in
   twenty-five chapters or canons, and the Augustinian doctrine of sin and
   grace was approved, without the doctrine of absolute or particularistic
   predestination. [1878] A similar result was reached at a synod of
   Valence (Valencia), held the same year, but otherwise unknown. [1879]

   The synod of Orange, for its Augustinian decisions in anthropology and
   soteriology, is of great importance. But as the chapters contain many
   repetitions (mostly from the Bible and the works of Augustine and his
   followers), it will suffice to give extracts containing in a positive
   form the most important propositions.

   Chap. 1. The sin of Adam has not injured the body only, but also the
   soul of man.

   2. The sin of Adam has brought sin and death upon all mankind.

   3. Grace is not merely bestowed when we pray for it, but grace itself
   causes us to pray for it.

   5. Even the beginning of faith, the disposition to believe, is effected
   by grace.

   9. All good thoughts and works are God's gift.

   10. Even the regenerate and the saints need continually the divine
   help.

   12. What God loves in us, is not our merit, but his own gift.

   13. The free will weakened [1880] in Adam, can only be restored through
   the grace of baptism.

   16. All good that we possess is God's gift, and therefore no one should
   boast.

   18. Unmerited grace precedes meritorious works. [1881]

   19. Even had man not fallen, he would have needed divine grace for
   salvation.

   23. When man sins, he does his own will; when he does good, he executes
   the will of God, yet voluntarily.

   25. The love of God is itself a gift of God.

   To these chapters the synod added a Creed of anthropology and
   soteriology, which, in opposition to Semi-Pelagianism, contains the
   following five propositions: [1882]

   1. Through the fall free will has been so weakened, that without
   prevenient grace no one can love God, believe on Him, or do good for
   God's sake, as he ought (sicut oportuit, implying that he may in a
   certain measure).

   2. Through the grace of God all may, by the co-operation of God,
   perform what is necessary for their soul's salvation.

   3. It is by no means our faith, that any have been predestinated by God
   to sin (ad malum), but rather: if there are people who believe so vile
   a thing, we condemn them with utter abhorrence (cum omni detestatione).
   [1883]

   4. In every good work the beginning proceeds not, from us, but God
   inspires in us faith and love to Him without merit precedent on our
   part, so that we desire baptism, and after baptism can, with His help,
   fulfil His will.

   5. Because this doctrine of the fathers and the synod is also salutary
   for the laity, the distinguished men of the laity also, who have been
   present at this solemn assembly, shall subscribe these acts.

   In pursuance of this requisition, besides the bishops, the Praefectus
   praetorio Liberius, and seven other viri illustres, signed the Acts.
   This recognition of the lay element, in view of the hierarchical bent
   of the age, is significant, and indicates an inward connection of
   evangelical doctrine with the idea of the universal priesthood. And
   they were two laymen, we must remember, Prosper and Hilarius, who first
   came forward in Gaul in energetic opposition to Semi-Pelagianism and in
   advocacy of the sovereignty of divine grace.

   The decisions of the council were sent by Caesarius to Rome, and were
   confirmed by pope Boniface II. in 530. Boniface, in giving his
   approval, emphasized the declaration, that even the beginning of a good
   will and of faith is a gift of prevenient grace, while Semi-Pelagianism
   left open a way to Christ without grace from God. And beyond question,
   the church was fully warranted in affirming the pre-eminence of grace
   over freedom, and the necessity and importance of the gratia
   praeveniens.

   Notwithstanding this rejection of the Semi-Pelagian teachings (not
   teachers), they made their way into the church again, and while
   Augustine was universally honored as a canonized saint and standard
   teacher, Cassian and Faustus of Rhegium remained in grateful
   remembrance as saints in France. [1884]

   At the close of this period Gregory the Great represents the moderated
   Augustinian system, with the gratia praeveniens, but without the gratia
   irresistibilis and without a particularistic decretum absolutum.
   Through him this milder Augustinianism exerted great influence upon the
   mediaeeval theology. Yet the strict Augustinianism always had its
   adherents, in such men as Bede, Alcuin, and Isidore of Seville, who
   taught a gemina praedestinatio, sive electorum ad salutem, sive
   reproborum ad mortem; it became prominent again in the Gottschalk
   controversy in the ninth century, was repressed by scholasticism and
   the prevailing legalism; was advocated by the precursors of the
   Reformation, especially by Wiclif and Huss; and in the Reformation of
   the sixteenth century, it gained a massive acknowledgment and an
   independent development in Calvinism, which, in fact, partially recast
   it, and gave it its most consistent form.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1877]  He wrote De veritate praedestinationis et gratiae Dei, three
   libb. against Faustus. He uses in these the expression praedestinatio
   duplex, but understands by the second praedestinatio the
   praedestination to damnation, not to sin, and censures those who
   affirmed a predestination to sin. Yet he expressly consigned to
   damnation all unbaptized children, even such as die in their mother's
   womb. Comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 378.

   [1878]  Comp. the transactions of the Concilium Arausicanum, the
   twenty-five Capitula, and the Symbolum in the Opera Aug. ed. Bened.
   Appendix to tom. x. 157 sqq.; in Mansi, tom. viii. p. 712 sqq.; and in
   Hefele, ii. p. 704 ff. The Benedictine editors trace back the several
   Capitula to their sources in the works of Augustine, Prosper, and
   others.

   [1879]  The Acts of the synod of Valence, in the metropolitan province
   of Vienne, held in the same year or in 530, have been lost. Pagi, and
   the common view, place this synod after the synod of Orange, Hefele, on
   the contrary (ii. 718), before it. But we have no decisive data.

   [1880]  "Arbitrium voluntatis in primo homine in infirmatum" (not
   "amissum").

   [1881]  There are then meritorious works. "Debetur merces bonis
   operibus, si fiant, sed gratia quae non debetur praecedit, ut fiant"
   Chap. 18 taken from Augustine's Opus imperf. c. Jul. i. c. 133 and from
   the Sentences of Prosper Aquitanus, n. 297. But, on the other hand,
   Augustinealso says: "Merita nostra sunt Dei munera."

   [1882]  In the Latin original, the Epilogus reads as follows (Aug.
   Opera, tom. x. Appendix, f. 159 sq.): "Ac sic secundum suprascriptas
   sanctarum scripturarum Bententias vel antiquerum patrum definitiones
   hoc, Deo propitiante, et praedicare debemus et credere, quod per
   peccatum primi hominis its inclinatum et attenuatum fuerit liberum
   arbitrium, ut nullus postea aut diligere Deum sicut oportuit, aut
   credere in Deum, aut operari propter Deum quod bonum eat, possit, nisi
   gratia cum et misericordia divina praevenerit. Unde Abel justo et Noe,
   et Abrahae, et Isaac, et Jacob, et omni antiquorum sanctorum
   multitudini illam praeclaram fidem, quam in ipsorum laude praedicat
   apostolus Paulus, non per bonum naturae, quod prius in Adam datum
   fuerat, sed per gratiam Dei credimus fuisse collatam. Quam gratiam
   etiam post adventum Domini omnibus qui baptizari desiderant, non in
   libero arbitrio haberi, sed Christi novimus simul et credimus largitate
   conferri, secundum illud quod jam supra dictum est, et quod praedicat
   Paulus apostolus: Vobis donatum est pro Christo non solum ut in eum
   credatis, sed etiam ut pro illopatiamini (Phil. i. 29); et illud: Deus
   qui caepit in vobis bonum opus, perficiet usque in diem Domini nostri
   Jesu Christi (Phil. i. 6); et illud: Gratia salvi facti estis per
   fidem, et hoc non ex vobis, Dei enim donum est (Ephes. ii. 8); et quod
   de se ipso ait apostolus: Misericordiam consecutus sum ut fidelis essem
   (1 Cor. vii. 29); non dixit quia eram, sed ut essem; et illud: Quid
   habes quod non accepisti? (1 Cor. iv. 7); et illud: Omne datum bonum et
   omne donum perfectum de sursum est, descendens a Patre luminum (Jac. i.
   17); et illud: Nemo habet quidquam boni, nisi illi datum fuerit de
   super (Joann. iii. 23). Innumerabilia sunt sanctarum scripturarum
   testimonia quae possunt ad probandam gratiam proferri, sed brevitatis
   studio praetermissa sunt, quia et revera cui pauca non sufficiunt plura
   non proderunt. " Hoc etiam secundum fidem catholicam credimus, quod
   accepta per baptismum gratia, omnes baptizati, Christo auxilante et
   coöperante, quae ad salutem animae pertinent, possint et debeant, si
   fideliter laborare voluerint, adimplere. "Aliquos vero ad malum divina
   potestate praedestinatos esse non serum non credimus, sed etiam si
   sunt, qui tantum malum credere velint cum omni detestatione illis
   anathema dicimus. Hoc etiam salubriter profitemur et credimus, quod in
   omni opere bono non nos incipimus et postea per Dei misericordiam
   adjuvamur, sed ipse nobis, nullis praecedentibus bonis meritis, et
   fidem et amorem sui prius inspirat, ut et baptismi sacramenta fideliter
   requiramus, et post baptismum cum ipsius adjutorio ea quae sibi sunt
   placita implere possimus. Unde manifestissime credendum est, quod et
   illius latronis, quem Dominus ad paradisi patriam revocavit, et
   Cornelii centurionis, ad quem angelus Domini missus est, et Zachaei,
   qui ipsum Dominum suscipere meruit, illa tam admirabilis fides non fuit
   de natum, sed divinae largitatis donum. " Et quia definitionem
   antiquoram patrum nostamque, quae suprascripta est, non solum
   religiosis, sed etiam laicis medicamentum esse, et desideramus et
   cupimus: placuit ut eam etiam illustres ac magnifici viri, qui nobiscum
   ad praefatam festivitatem convenerunt, propria manu subscriberent."
   Then follow the names of fourteen bishops (headed by Caesarius) and
   eight laymen (headed by Petrus Marcellinus Felix Liberius, vir
   clarissimus et illustris Praefectus Praetorii Galliarum atque
   Patricius).

   [1883]  This undoubtedly takes for granted, that Augustinedid not teach
   this; and in fact he taught only a predestination of the wicked to
   perdition, not a predestination to sin.

   [1884]  Comp. respecting the further history of anthropology Wiggers:
   Schicksale der augustinischen Anthropologie von der Verdammung des
   Semipelagianismus auf den Synoden zu Orange und Valence, 529, bis zur
   Reaction des Mönchs Gottschalk für den Augustinimus, in Niedner's
   "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theologie," 1854, p. 1 ff.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

  CHAPTER X.

   CHURCH FATHERS, AND THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

   Comp. the general literature on the Fathers in vol. i. § 116, and the
   special literature in the several sections following.

   I.--The Greek Fathers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 161. Eusebius of C sarea.

   I. Eusebius Pamphili: Opera omnia Gr. et Lat., curis variorum nempe II.
   Valesii, Fr. Vigeri, B. Montfaucon, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit
   et denuo recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. (Petit-Montrouge) 1857. 6 vols.
   (tom. xix.-xxiv. of Migne's Patrologia Graeca). Of his several works
   his Church History has been oftenest edited, sometimes by itself,
   sometimes in connection with his Vita Constantini, and with the church
   histories of his successors; best by Henr. Valesius (Du Valois), Par.
   1659-'73, 8 vols., and Cantabr. 1720, 3 vols., and again 1746 (with
   additions by G. Reading, best ed.); also (without the later historians)
   by E. Zimmermann, Francof. 1822; F. A. Heinichen, Lips. 1827-'8, 3
   vols.; E. Burton, Oxon. 1838, 2 vols. (1845 and 1856 in 1 vol.);
   Schwegler, Tüb. 1852; also in various translations: In German by
   Stroth, Quedlinburg, 1776 ff., 2 vols.; by Closs, Stuttg. 1839; and
   several times in French and English; in English by Hanmer (1584), T.
   Shorting, and better by Chr. Fr. Cruse (an Amer. Episcopalian of German
   descent, died in New York, 1865): The Ecclesiastical History of Euseb.
   Pamph., etc., Now York, 1856 (10th ed.), and Lond. 1858 (in Bohn's
   Eccles. Library). Comp. also the literary notices in Brunet, sub
   Euseb., and James Darling, Cyclop. Bibliograph. p. 1072 ff.

   II. Biographies by Hieronymus (De viris illustr. c. 81, a brief sketch,
   with a list of his works), Valesius (De vita scriptisque Eusebii
   Caesar.), W. Cave (Lives of the most eminent Fathers of the Church,
   vol. ii. pp. 95-144, ed. H. Cary, Oxf. 1840), Heinichen, Stroth, Cruse,
   and others, in their editions of the Eccles. Hist. of Eusebius. F. C.
   Baur: Comparatur Eusebius Hist. eccl. parens cum parente Hist.
   Herodoto. Tub. 1834. Haenell: De Euseb. Caes. religionis christ.
   defensore. Gott. 1843. Sam. Lee: Introductory treatise in his Engl.
   edition of the Theophany of Eusebius, Cambr. 1843. Semisch: Art.
   Eusebius v. Caes. in Herzog's Encycl. vol. iv. (1855), pp. 229-238.
   Lyman Coleman: Eusebius as an historian, in the Bibliotheca Sacra,
   Andover, 1858, pp. 78-96. (The biography by Acacius, his successor in
   the see of Caesarea, Socr. ii. 4, is lost.)

   This third period is uncommonly rich in great teachers of the church,
   who happily united theological ability and practical piety, and who, by
   their development of the most important dogmas in conflict with mighty
   errors, earned the gratitude of posterity. They monopolized all the
   learning and eloquence of the declining Roman empire, and made it
   subservient to the cause of Christianity for the benefit of future
   generations. They are justly called fathers of the church; they belong
   to Christendom without distinction of denominations; and they still,
   especially Athanasius and Chrysostom among the Greek fathers, and
   Augustine and Jerome among the Latin, by their writings and their
   example, hold powerful sway, though with different degrees of authority
   according to the views entertained by the various churches concerning
   the supremacy of the Bible and the value of ecclesiastical tradition.

   We begin the series of the most important Nicene and post-Nicene
   divines with Eusebius of Caesarea, the "father of church history," the
   Christian Herodotus.

   He was born about the year 260 or 270, probably in Palestine, and was
   educated at Antioch, and afterwards at Caesarea in Palestine, under the
   influence of the works of Origen. He formed an intimate friendship with
   the learned presbyter Pamphilus, [1885] who had collected a
   considerable biblical and patristic library, and conducted a
   flourishing theological school which he had founded at Caesarea, till
   in 309 he died a martyr in the persecution under Diocletian. [1886]
   Eusebius taught for a long time in this school; and after the death of
   his preceptor and friend, he travelled to Tyre and to Egypt, and was an
   eye-witness of the cruel scenes of the last great persecution of the
   Christians. He was imprisoned as a confessor, but soon released.

   Twenty years later, when Eusebius, presiding at the council at Tyre
   (335 or 336), took sides against Athanasius, the bishop Potamon of
   Hieraclea, according to the account of Epiphanius, exclaimed in his
   face: "How dost thou, Eusebius, sit as judge of the innocent
   Athanasius? Who can bear it? Why! didst thou not sit with me in prison
   in the time of the tyrants? They plucked out my eye for my confession
   of the truth; thou camest forth unhurt; thou hast suffered nothing for
   thy confession; unscathed thou art here present. How didst thou escape
   from prison? On some other ground than because thou didst promise to do
   an unlawful thing [to sacrifice to idols]? or, perchance, didst thou
   actually do this? "But this insinuation of cowardice and infidelity to
   Christ arose probably from envy and party passion in a moment of
   excitement. With such a stain upon him, Eusebius would hardly have been
   intrusted by the ancient church with the episcopal staff. [1887]

   About the year 315, or earlier, Eusebius was chosen bishop of Caesarea,
   [1888] where he labored till his death in 340. The patriarchate of
   Antioch, which was conferred upon him after the deposition of
   Eustathius in 331, he in honorable self-denial, and from preference for
   a more quiet literary life, declined.

   He was drawn into the Arian controversies against his will, and played
   an eminent part at the council of Nicaea, where he held the post of
   honor at the right hand of the presiding emperor. In the perplexities
   of this movement he took middle ground, and endeavored to unite the
   opposite parties. This brought him, on the one hand, the peculiar favor
   of the emperor Constantine, but, on the other, from the leaders of the
   Nicene orthodoxy, the suspicion of a secret leaning to the Arian
   heresy. [1889] It is certain that, before the council of Nicaea, he
   sympathized with Arius; that in the council he proposed an orthodox but
   indefinite compromise-creed; that after the council he was not friendly
   with Athanasius and other defenders of orthodoxy; and that, in the
   synod of Tyre, which deposed Athanasius in 335, he took a leading part,
   and, according to Epiphanius, presided. In keeping with these facts is
   his silence respecting the Arian controversy (which broke out in 318)
   in an Ecclesiastical History which comes down to 324, and was probably
   not completed till 326, when the council of Nicaea would have formed
   its most fitting close. He would rather close his history with the
   victory of Constantine over Licinius than with the Creed over which
   theological parties contended, and with which he himself was
   implicated. But, on the other hand, it is also a fact that he
   subscribed the Nicene Creed, though reluctantly, and reserving his own
   interpretation of the homoousion; that he publicly recommended it to
   the people of his diocese; and that he never formally rejected it.

   The only satisfactory solution of this apparent inconsistency is to be
   found in his own indecision and leaning to a doctrinal
   latitudinarianism, not unfrequent in historians who become familiar
   with a vast variety of opinions in different ages and countries. On the
   important point of the homoousion he never came to a firm and final
   conviction. He wavered between the older Origenistic subordinationism
   and the Nicene orthodoxy. He asserted clearly and strongly with Origen
   the eternity of the Son, and so far was decidedly opposed to Arianism,
   which made Christ a creature in time; but he recoiled from the
   homoousion, because it seemed to him to go beyond the Scriptures, and
   hence he made no use of the term, either in his book against Marcellus,
   or in his discourses against Sabellius. Religious sentiment compelled
   him to acknowledge the full deity of Christ; fear of Sabellianism
   restrained him. He avoided the strictly orthodox formulas, and moved
   rather in the less definite terms of former times. Theological acumen
   he constitutionally lacked. He was, in fact, not a man of controversy,
   but of moderation and peace. He stood upon the border between the
   ante-Nicene theology and the Nicene. His doctrine shows the color of
   each by turns, and reflects the unsettled problem of the church in the
   first stage of the Arian controversy. [1890]

   With his theological indecision is connected his weakness of character.
   He was an amiable and pliant court-theologian, and suffered himself to
   be blinded and carried away by the splendor of the first Christian
   emperor, his patron and friend. Constantine took him often into his
   counsels, invited him to his table, related to him his vision of the
   cross, showed him the famous labarum, listened standing to his
   occasional sermons, wrote him several letters, and intrusted to him the
   supervision of the copies of the Bible for the use of the churches in
   Constantinople.

   At the celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of this emperor's reign
   (336), Eusebius delivered a panegyric decked with the most pompous
   hyperbole, and after his death, in literal obedience to the maxim: "De
   mortuis nihil nisi bonum," he glorified his virtues at the expense of
   veracity and with intentional omission of his faults. With all this,
   however, he had noble qualities of mind and heart, which in more quiet
   times would have been an ornament to any episcopal see. And it must be
   said, to his honor, that he never claimed the favor of the emperor for
   private ends.

   The theological and literary value of Eusebius lies in the province of
   learning. He was an unwearied reader and collector, and probably
   surpassed all the other church fathers, hardly excepting even Origen
   and Jerome, in compass of knowledge and of acquaintance with Grecian
   literature both heathen and Christian; while in originality, vigor,
   sharpness, and copiousness of thought, he stands far below Origen,
   Athanasius, Basil, and the two Gregories. His scholarship goes much
   further in breadth than in depth, and is not controlled and
   systematized by a philosophical mind or a critical judgment.

   Of his works, the historical are by far the most celebrated and the
   most valuable; to wit, his Ecclesiastical History, his Chronicle, his
   Life of Constantine, and a tract on the Martyrs of Palestine in the
   Diocletian persecution. The position of Eusebius, at the close of the
   period of persecution, and in the opening of the period of the imperial
   establishment of Christianity, and his employment of many ancient
   documents, some of which have since been lost, give these works a
   peculiar value. He is temperate, upon the whole, impartial, and
   truth-loving--rare virtues in an age of intense excitement and
   polemical zeal like that in which he lived. The fact that he was the
   first to work this important field of theological study, and for many
   centuries remained a model in it, justly entitles him to his honorable
   distinction of Father of Church History. Yet he is neither a critical
   student nor an elegant writer of history, but only a diligent and
   learned collector. His Ecclesiastical History, from the birth of Christ
   to the victory of Constantine over Licinius in 324, gives a colorless,
   defective, incoherent, fragmentary, yet interesting picture of the
   heroic youth of the church, and owes its incalculable value, not to the
   historic art of the author, but almost entirely to his copious and
   mostly literal extracts from foreign, and in some cases now extinct,
   sources. As concerns the first three centuries, too, it stands alone;
   for the successors of Eusebius begin their history where he leaves off.

   His Chronicle consists of an outline-sketch of universal history down
   to 325, arranged by ages and nations (borrowed largely from the
   Chronography of Julius Africanus), and an abstract of this universal
   chronicle in tabular form. The Greek original is lost, with the
   exception of unconnected fragments by Syncellus; but the second part,
   containing the chronological tables, was translated and continued by
   Jerome to 378, and remained for centuries the source of the
   synchronistic knowledge of history, and the basis of historical works
   in Christendom. [1891] Jerome also translated, with several corrections
   and additions, a useful antiquarian work of Eusebius, the so-called
   Onomasticon, a description of the places mentioned in the Bible. [1892]

   In his Life, and still more in his Eulogy, of Constantine, Eusebius has
   almost entirely forgotten the dignity of the historian in the zeal of
   the panegyrist. Nevertheless, this work is the chief source of the
   history of the reign of his imperial friend. [1893]

   Next in importance to his historical works are his apologetic; namely,
   his Praeparatio evangelica, [1894] and his Demonstratio evangelica.
   [1895] These were both written before 324, and are an arsenal of the
   apologetic material of the ancient church. The former proposes, in
   fifteen books, to give a documentary refutation of the heathen
   religious from Greek writings. The latter gives, in twenty books, of
   which only the first ten are preserved, the positive argument for the
   absolute truth of Christianity, from its nature, and from the
   fulfilment of the prophecies in the Old Testament. The Theophany, in
   five books, is a popular compend from these two works, and was probably
   written later, as Epiphanius wrote his Anacephalaeosis after the
   Panarion, for more general use. [1896] It is known in the Greek
   original from fragments only, published by Cardinal Mai, [1897] and now
   complete in a Syriac version which was discovered in 1839 by Tattam, in
   a Nitrian monastery, and was edited by Samuel Lee at London in 1842.
   [1898] To this class also belongs his apologetic tract Against
   Hierocles. [1899]

   Of much less importance are the two dogmatic works of Eusebius: Against
   Marcellus, and Upon the Church Theology (likewise against Marcellus),
   in favor of the hypostatical existence of the Son. [1900]

   His Commentaries on several books of the Bible (Isaiah, Psalms, Luke)
   pursue, without independence, and without knowledge of the Hebrew, the
   allegorical method of Origen. [1901]

   To these are to be added, finally, some works in Biblical Introduction
   and Archaeology, the Onomasticon, already alluded to, a sort of sacred
   geography, and fragments of an enthusiastic Apology for Origen, a
   juvenile work which he and Pamphilus jointly produced before 309, and
   which, in the Origenistic controversy, was the target of the bitterest
   shots of Epiphanius and Jerome. [1902]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1885] Hence the surname Eusebios (ho philos) tou Pamphilou, Pamphhili,
   by which anciently he was most frequently distinguished from many other
   less noted men of the same name, e.g.: Eusebius of Nicomedia ( 341),
   Eusebius of Vercelli ( 371), Eusebius Emesenus, of Emesa or Emisa in
   Phoenicia ( 360), and others. On this last comp. Opuscula quae
   supersunt Graeca, ed. Augusti, Elberfeld, 1829, somewhat hastily;
   corrected by Thilo, Ueber die Schriften des Euseb. von Alex. und des
   Euseb. von Emisa, Halle, 1832.

   [1886] Jeromeremarks of Pamphilus (De viris illustribus, c. 75): "Tanto
   bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis
   voluminum sua manu descripserit, quae usque hodie [a. 392] in
   Caesariensi bibliotheca habentur."

   [1887] So Valesius also views the matter, while Baronius puts faith in
   the rebuke.

   [1888] Hence he is also called Eusebius Caesariensis or Palestinus.

   [1889] So thought, among the ancients, Hilary, Jerome(who otherwise
   speaks favorably of Eusebius), Theodoret, and the second council of
   Nicaea (a.d.787), which unjustly condemned him even expressly, as an
   Arian heretic; and so have thought, among modems, Baronius, Petavius,
   Clericus, Tillemont, Gieseler; while the church historian Socrates, the
   Roman bishops Gelasius and Pelagius II., Valesius, G. Bull, Cave (who
   enters into a fall vindication, l.c. p. 135 sqq.), and Sam. Lee (and
   most Anglicans), have defended the orthodoxy of Eusebius, or at least
   mention him with very high respect. The Gallican church has even placed
   him in the catalogue of saints. Athanasius never expressly charges him
   with apostasy from the Nicene faith to Arianism or to Semi-Arianism,
   but frequently says that before 325 he held with Arius, and changed his
   opinion at Nicaea. This is the view of Möhler also (Athanasius der
   Grosse, p. 333 ff.), whom Dorner (History of Christology, i. 792)
   inaccurately reckons among the opponents of the orthodoxy of Eusebius.
   The testimonies of the ancients for and against Eusebius are collected
   in Migne's edition of his works, tom. i. pp. 68-98. Among recent
   writers Dr. Samuel Lee has most fully investigated the orthodoxy of
   Eusebius in the Preliminary Dissertation to his translation of the
   Theophania from the Syriac, pp. xxiv.-xcix. He arrives at the
   conclusion (p. xcviii.), "that Eusebius was no Arian; and that the same
   reasoning must prove that he was no Semi-Arian; that he did in no
   degree partake of the error of Origen, ascribed to him so positively
   and so groundlessly by Photius." But this is merely a negative result.

   [1890] The same view is taken substantially by Baur (Geschichte der
   Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung, i. 475 ff.), Domer
   (Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 792 ff),
   Semisch (Art. Eusebius in Herzog's Encyklopädie, vol iv. 233), and
   other modem German theologians.

   [1891] The Greek title was: Chronikon kanonon pantodape
   historia(Hieron. De viris illustr. c. 81); the Latin is: Chronica
   Eusebii s. Canones historiae universae, Hieronymo interprete. See
   Vallarsi's ed. of Jerome's works, tom. viii. 1-820. Jeromealso calls it
   Temporum librum. It is now known also (since 1818) in an Armenian
   translation. Most complete edition by Angelo Mai, in Script vet. nova
   coll. tom. viii. Rom. 1833, republished in Migne's edition of the
   complete works of Eusebius, tom. i. p. 100 sqq.

   [1892] Peri ton topikon onomaton ton en te theia graphe, De situ et
   nominibus locorum Hebraicorum, in Jerome's works, tom. iii. 121-290. A
   new edition, Greek and Latin, by Larsow and Parthey, Berol. 1862.

   [1893] Socrates already observes (in the first book of his Church
   History) that Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantinemore as a
   panegyrical oration than as an accurate account of events. Baronius
   (Annal. ad an. 324, n. 5) compares the Vita Constantini, not unfitly,
   with the Cyropaedia of Xenophon, who, as Cicero says, "vitam Cyri non
   tam ad historiae fidem conscripsit, quam ad effigiem justi principis
   exhibendam." This is the most charitable construction we can put upon
   this book, the tone of which is intolerably offensive to a manly and
   independent spirit acquainted with the crimes of Constantine. But we
   should remember that stronger men, such as Athanasius, Hilary, and
   Epiphanius have overrated Constantine, and called him, "most pious,"
   and "of blessed memory." Burckhardt, in his work on Constantine, p. 346
   and passim, speaks too contemptuously of Eusebius, without any
   reference to his good qualities and great merits.

   [1894] Best edited by Thomas Gaisford, Oxon. 1843, 4 vols. 8vo. In
   Migne's edition it forms tom. iii.

   [1895] Likewise edited by Gaisford, Oxf. 1852, 2 vols. 8vo. In Migne's
   edition tom. !v.

   [1896] Dr. Sam. Lee, however, is of the opposite opinion, see p. xxii.
   of the Preface to his translation."It appears probable to me," he says,
   "that this more popular and more useful work [the Theophania] was first
   composed and published, and that the other two [the Praeparatio, and
   the Demonstratio Evangelica]--illustrating, as they generally do, some
   particular points only--argued in order in our work--were reserved for
   the reading and occasional writing of our author during a considerable
   number of years, as well for the satisfaction of his own mind, as for
   the general reading of the learned. It appears probable to me,
   therefore, that this was one of the first productions of Eusebius, if
   not the first after the persecutions ceased."

   [1897] In the fourth volume of the Novae Patrum Bibliothecae, Rom.
   1847, pp. 108-156, reprinted in Migne's edition of the works of
   Eusebius tom. v. 609 sqq.

   [1898] Also in English, under the title: On the Theophania, or Divine
   Manifestation of our Saviour Jesus Christ, by Eusebius, translated into
   English, with Notes, from an ancient Syriac Version of the Greek
   original, now lost; to which is prefixed a Vindication of the
   orthodoxy, and prophetical views, of that distinguished writer, by Sam.
   Lee, D. D., Cambr. 1848. The MS. of this work is deposited in the
   British Museum; it was written at Edessa in the Estranghelo, or old
   church-handwriting of the Syrians, on very fine and well-prepared skin.
   Dr. Lee assigns it to the year 411 (I. c. p. xii.).

   [1899] In Migne's edition, tom. iv. 195-868.

   [1900] In Migne's edition, tom vi. p. 107 sqq.

   [1901] Angelo Mai has published new fragments of Commentaries of
   Eusebius on the Psalms and on the Gospel of Luke in Novae Patrum
   Bibliothecae tom. iv. p. 77 sqq. and p. 160 sqq., and republished in
   Migne's ed. vol. vi.

   [1902] The sixth book was added by Eusebius alone after the death of
   his friend. The first book is still extant in the Latin version of
   Rufinus, and some extracts in Photius.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 162. The Church Historians after Eusebius.

   I. The Church Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius,
   Philostorgius, and Theodorus Lector have been edited, with the Eccles.
   Hist. of Eusebius, by Valesius, Par. 1659-'73, in 3 vols. (defective
   reprint, Frankf. a. M. 1672-'79); best ed., Cambridge, 1720, and again
   1746, in 3 vols., with improvements and additions by Guil. Reading.
   Best English translation by Meredith, Hanmer, and Wye Saltonstall,
   Cambr. 1688, 1692, and London, 1709. New ed. in Bohn's Ecclesiastical
   Library, Land. 1851, in 4 vols. small 8vo.

   II. F. A. Holzhausen: De fontibus, quibus Socrates, Sozomenus, ac
   Theodoretus in scribenda historia sacra usi sunt. Gött. 1825. G.
   Dangers: De fontibus, indole et dignitate librorum Theod. Lectoris et
   Evagrii. Gött. 1841. J. G. Dowling: An Introduction to the Critical
   Study of Eccl. History. Lond. 1838, p. 84 ff. F. Chr. Baur: Die Epochen
   der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung. Tüb. 1852, pp. 7-32. Comp. P.
   Schaff: History of the Apostolic Church, Gen. Introd. p. 52 f.

   Eusebius, without intending it, founded a school of church historians,
   who continued the thread of his story from Constantine the Great to the
   close of the sixth century, and, like him, limited themselves to a
   simple, credulous narration of external facts, and a collection of
   valuable documents, without an inkling of the critical sifting,
   philosophical mastery, and artistic reproduction of material, which we
   find in Thucydides and Tacitus among the classics, and in many a modern
   historian. None of them touched the history of the first three
   centuries; Eusebius was supposed to have done here all that could be
   desired. The histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret run nearly
   parallel, but without mutual acquaintance or dependence, and their
   contents are very similar. [1903] Evagrius carried the narrative down
   to the close of the sixth century. All of them combine ecclesiastical
   and political history, which after Constantine were inseparably
   interwoven in the East; and (with the exception of Philostorgius) all
   occupy essentially the same orthodox stand-point. They ignore the
   Western church, except where it comes in contact with the East.

   These successors of Eusebius are:

   Socrates, an attorney or scholasticus in Constantinople, born in 380.
   His work, in seven books, covers the period from 306 to 439, and is
   valuable for its numerous extracts from sources, and its calm,
   impartial representation. It has been charged with a leaning towards
   Novatianism. He had upon the whole a higher view of the duty of the
   historian than his contemporaries and successors; he judged more
   liberally of heretics and schismatics, and is less extravagant in the
   praise of emperors and bishops. [1904]

   Hermias Sozomen, a native of Palestine, a junior contemporary of
   Socrates, and likewise a scholasticus in Constantinople, wrote the
   history of the church, in nine books, from 323 to the death of Honorius
   in 423, [1905] and hence in its subjects keeps pace for the most part
   with Socrates, though, as it would appear, without the knowledge of his
   work, and with many additions on the history of the hermits and monks,
   for whom he had a great predilection. [1906]

   Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, was born at Antioch about 390, of an
   honorable and pious mother; educated in the cloister of St. Euprepius
   (perhaps with Nestorius); formed upon the writings of Diodorus of
   Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; made bishop of Cyros, or Cyrrhos, in
   Syria, after 420; and died in 457. He is known to us from the
   Christological controversies as the most scholarly advocate of the
   Antiochian dyophysitism or moderate Nestorianism; condemned at Ephesus
   in 431, deposed by the council of Robbers in 449, acquitted in 451 by
   the fourth ecumenical council on condition of his condemning Nestorius
   and all deniers of the theotokos, but again partially condemned at the
   fifth long after his death. He was, therefore, like Eusebius, an actor
   as well as an author of church history. As bishop, he led an exemplary
   life, his enemies themselves being judges, and was especially
   benevolent to the poor. He owned nothing valuable but books, and
   applied the revenues of his bishopric to the public good. He shared the
   superstitions and weaknesses of his age.

   His Ecclesiastical History, in five books, composed about 450, reaches
   from 325 to 429. It is the most valuable continuation of Eusebius, and,
   though shorter, it furnishes an essential supplement to the works of
   Socrates and Sozomen.

   His "Historia religiosa" consists of biographies of hermits and monks,
   written with great enthusiasm for ascetic holiness, and with many
   fabulous accessories, according to the taste of the day. His "Heretical
   Fables," [1907] though superficial and marred by many errors, is of
   some importance for the history of Christian doctrine. It contains a
   severe condemnation of Nestorius, which we should hardly expect from
   Theodoret. [1908]

   Theodoret was a very fruitful author. Besides these histories, he wrote
   valuable commentaries on most of the books of the Old Testament and on
   all the Epistles of Paul; dogmatic and polemic works against Cyril and
   the Alexandrian Christology, and against the heretics; an apology of
   Christianity against the Greek philosophy; and sermons and letters.
   [1909]

   Evagrius (born about 536 in Syria, died after 594) was a lawyer in
   Antioch, and rendered the patriarch Gregory great service, particularly
   in an action for incest in 588. He was twice married, and the
   Antiochians celebrated his second wedding (592) with public plays. He
   is the last continuator of Eusebius and Theodoret, properly so called.
   He begins his Ecclesiastical History of six books with the council of
   Ephesus, 431, and closes it with the twelfth year of the reign of the
   emperor Maurice, 594. He is of special importance on the Nestorian and
   Eutychian controversies; gives accounts of bishops and monks, churches
   and public buildings, earthquakes and other calamities; and interweaves
   political history, such as the wars of Chosroes and the assaults of the
   barbarians. [1910] He was strictly orthodox, and a superstitious
   venerator of monks, saints, and relics. [1911]

   Theodorus Lector, reader in the church of Constantinople about 525,
   compiled an abstract from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, under the
   title of Historia tripartita, which is still extant in the manuscript;
   [1912] and composed a continuation of Socrates from 431 to 518, of
   which fragments only are preserved in John Damascenus, Nilus, and
   Nicephorus Callisti. [1913]

   Of Philostorgius, an Arian church historian (born in 368), nothing has
   come down to us but fragments in Photius; and these breathe so strong a
   partisan spirit, that the loss of the rest is not to be regretted. He
   described the period from the commencement of the Arian controversy to
   the reign of Valentinian III. a.d. 423.

   The series of the Greek church historians closes with Nicephorus
   Callistus or Callisti (i.e., son of Callistus), [1914] who lived at
   Constantinople in the fifteenth century. He was surprised that the
   voice of history had been silent since the sixth century, and resumed
   the long-neglected task where his predecessors had left it, but on a
   more extended plan of a general history of the catholic church from the
   beginning to the year 911. We have, however, only eighteen books to the
   death of emperor Phocas in 610, and a list of contents of five other
   books. He made large use of Eusebius and his successors, and added
   unreliable traditions of the later days of the Apostles, the history of
   Monophysitism, of monks and saints, of the barbarian irruptions, &c.
   He, too, ignores the Pelagian controversy, and takes little notice of
   the Latin church after the fifth century. [1915]

   In the Latin church--to anticipate thus much--Eusebius found only one
   imitator and continuator, the presbyter and monk Rufinus, of Aquileia
   (330-410). He was at first a friend of Jerome, afterwards a bitter
   enemy. He translated, with abridgments and insertions at his pleasure,
   the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and continued it to Theodosius
   the Great (392). Yet his continuation has little value. He wrote also
   biographies of hermits; an exposition of the Apostles' Creed; and
   translations of several works of Origen, with emendations of offensive
   portions. [1916]

   Cassiodorus, consul and monk (died about 562), composed a useful
   abstract of the works of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, in twelve
   books, under the title of Historia tripartita, for the Latin church of
   the middle age.

   The only properly original contributions to church history from among
   the Latin divines were those of Jerome ( 419) in his biographical and
   literary Catalogue of Illustrious Men (written in 392), which
   Gennadius, a Semi-Pelagian presbyter of South Gaul, continued to the
   year 495. Sulpicius Severus ( 420) wrote in good style a Sacred
   History, or History of the Old and New Testament, from the creation
   down to the year 400; and Paulus Orosius (about 415) an apologetic
   Universal History, which hardly, however, deserves the name of a
   history.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1903] The frequent supposition (of Valois with others) that Sozomen
   wrote to complete Socrates, and Theodoret to complete both, cannot be
   proved. The authors seem independent of one another. Theodoret says in
   the Prooemium: "Since Eusebius of Palestine, commencing his history
   with the holy apostles, has described the events of the church to the
   reign of the God-beloved Constantine, I have begun my history where he
   ended his." He makes no mention of any other writers on the same
   subject. Nor does Sozomen, l. i. c. 1, where he alludes to his
   predecessors. Valesius charges Sozomen with plagiarism.

   [1904] Separate edition by Hussey: Socratis scholastici Historia Eccl.
   Oxon. 1853, 3 vols. 8vo.

   [1905] According to the usual, but incorrect statement, to the year
   489.

   [1906] He informs us (Book v. c. 15) that his grandfather, with his
   whole family, was converted to Christianity by a miracle of the monk
   Hilarion.

   [1907] Hairetikes kakomuthias epitome, in five books; in Schulze's
   edition of the Opera, tom. iv. p. 280 sqq. The fifth book presents a
   summary of the chief articles of the orthodox faith, a sort of
   dogmatical compend.

   [1908] Book iv. ch. 12. Garnier, Cave, and Oudin regard this
   anti-Nestorian chapter as a later interpolation, though without good
   reason; Schulze (note in loco, tom. iv. p. 368) defends it as genuine.
   It should be remembered that Theodoret at the council of Chalcedon
   could only save himself from expulsion by anathematizing Nestorius.

   [1909] TheodoretiOpera omnia cum et studio Jac. Sirmondi, Par. 1642, 4
   vols. fol., with an additional vol. v. by Gamier, 1684. Another edition
   by J. L. Schulze, Halle, 1768-'74, 5 tom. in 10 vols., which has been
   republished by J. P. Migne, Par. 1860, in 5 vols. (Patrologia Graeca,
   tom. lxxx.-lxxxiv.). The last volume in Schulze's and Migne's editions
   contains Garnier's Auctarium ad opera Theod. and his Dissertations on
   the life and on the faith of Theodoret, and on the fifth ecumenical
   Synod. Comp. also Schröckh, Church History, vol. xviii.

   [1910] VaIesius blames him "quod non tantam diligentiam adhibuit in
   conquirendis antiquitatis ecclesiasticae monumentis, quam in legendis
   profanis auctoribus."

   [1911] The first edition was from a Parisian manuscript by Rob.
   Stephanus, Par. 1544. Valesius, in his complete edition, employed two
   more manuscripts. A new edition, according to the text of Valesius,
   appeared at Oxford in 1844.

   [1912] Valesius intended to edit it, and contented himself with giving
   the variations, since the book furnished nothing new.

   [1913] Collected in the edition of Valesius.

   [1914] Not to be confounded with Nicephorus, patriarch of
   Constantinople, who was deposed during the image controversy and died
   828. His works, among which is also a brief Chronographia ab Adamo ad
   Michaelis et Theophili tempora (828), form tom. c. in Migne's
   Patrologia Graeca.

   [1915] First edition in Latin by John Lange, Basil. 1658; in Greek and
   Latin by Front. Ducaeus, Par. 1630, in 2 vols. There exists but one
   Greek manuscript copy of Nicephorus, as far as we know, which is in the
   possession of the imperial library of Vienna.

   [1916] His works are edited by Vallarsi, Veron. 1745, vol. i. fol.
   (unfinished). The Ecclesiastical History has several times appeared
   separately, and was long a needed substitute for Eusebius in the West.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 163. Athanasius the Great.

   I. S. Athanasius: Opera omnia quae extant vel quae ejus nomine
   circumferuntur, etc., Gr. et lat., opera et studio monachorum ordinis
   S. Benedicti e congregatione S. Mauri (Jac. Lopin et B. de,
   Montfaucon). Paris, 1698. 3 tom. fol. (or rather 2 tomi, the first in
   two parts). This is the most elegant and correct edition, but must be
   completed by two volumes of the Collectio nova Patrum, ed. B. de
   Montfaucon. Par. 1706. 2 tom. fol. More complete, but not so handsome,
   is the edition of 1777, Patav., in 4 vols. fol. (Brunet says of the
   latter "Édition moins belle et moins chère quo cello de Paris, mais
   augmentée d'un 4e vol., lequel renferme les opuscules de S. Athan.,
   tirés de la Collectio nova du P. Montfaucon et des Anecdota de Wolf, et
   de plus l'interpretatio Psalmorum.") But now both these older editions
   need again to be completed by the Syrian Festal Letters of Athanasius,
   discovered by Dr. Tattam in a Nitrian monastery in 1843; edited by W.
   Cureton in Syriac and English at London in 1846 and 1848 (and in
   English by H. Burgess and H. Williams, Oxf. 1854, in the Libr. of the
   Fathers); in German, with notes by F. Larson, at Leipzig in 1852; and
   in Syriac and Latin by Card. Angelo Mai in the Nova Patr. Bibliotheca,
   Rom. 1853, tom. vi. pp. 1-168. A new and more salable, though less
   accurate, edition of the Opera omnia Athan. (a reprint of the
   Benedictine) appeared at Petit-Montrouge (Par.) in J.P. Migne's
   Patrologia Gr. (tom. xxv.-xxviii.), 1857, in 4 vols.

   The more important dogmatic works of Athanasius have been edited
   separately by J. C. Thilo, in the first volume of the Bibliotheca
   Patrum Graec. dogmatica, Lips. 1853; and in an English translation,
   with explanations and indexes, by J. H. Newman, Oxf. 1842-'44 (Library
   of the Fathers, vols. 8, 13, 19).

   II. Gregorius Naz.: Oratio panegyrica in Magnum Athanasium (Orat.
   xxi.). Several Vitae Athan. in the 1st vol. of the Bened. ed. of his
   Opera. Acta Sanctorum for May 2d. G. Hermant: La Vie d'Athanase, etc.
   Par. 1679. 2 vols. Tillemont: Mémoires, vol. viii. pp. 2-258 (2d ed.
   Par. 1713). W. Cave: Lives of the most eminent Fathers of the first
   Four Centuries, vol. ii. pp. 145-364 (Oxf. ed. of 1840). Schröckh: Th.
   xii. pp. 101-270. J. A. Möhler: Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche
   seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus. Mainz, 1827. 2d
   (title) ed. 1844. Heinrich Voigt: Die Lehre des heiligen Athanasius von
   Alexandria oder die kirchliche Dogmatik des 4ten Jahrhunderts auf Grund
   der biblischen Lehre vom Logos. Bremen, 1861. A. P. Stanley: Lectures
   on the History of the Eastern Church. New York, 1862, lecture vii. (pp.
   322-358).

   Athanasius is the theological and ecclesiastical centre, as his senior
   contemporary Constantine is the political and secular, about which the
   Nicene age revolves. Both bear the title of the Great; the former with
   the better right, that his greatness was intellectual and moral, and
   proved itself in suffering, and through years of warfare against
   mighty, errors and against the imperial court. Athanasius contra
   mundum, et mundus contra Athanasium, is a well-known sentiment which
   strikingly expresses his fearless independence and immovable fidelity
   to his convictions. He seems to stand an unanswerable contradiction to
   the catholic maxim of authority: Quod sem per, quod ubique, quod ab
   omnibus creditum est, and proves that truth is by no means always on
   the side of the majority, but may often be very unpopular. The solitary
   Athanasius even in exile, and under the ban of council and emperor, was
   the bearer of the truth, and, as he was afterwards named, the "father
   of orthodoxy." [1917]

   On a martyrs' day in 313 the bishop Alexander of Alexandria saw a troop
   of boys imitating the church services in innocent sport, Athanasius
   playing the part of bishop, and performing baptism by immersion. [1918]
   He caught in this a glimpse of future greatness; took the youth into
   his care; and appointed him his secretary, and afterwards his
   archdeacon. Athanasius studied the classics, the Holy Scriptures, and
   the church fathers, and meantime lived as an ascetic. He already
   sometimes visited St. Anthony in his solitude.

   In the year 325 he accompanied his bishop to the council of Nicaea, and
   at once distinguished himself there by his zeal and ability in refuting
   Arianism and vindicating the eternal deity of Christ, and incurred the
   hatred of this heretical party, which raised so many storms about his
   life.

   In the year 328 [1919] he was nominated to the episcopal succession of
   Alexandria, on the recommendation of the dying Alexander, and by the
   voice of the people, though not yet of canonical age, and at first
   disposed to avoid the election by flight; and thus he was raised to the
   highest ecclesiastical dignity of the East. For the bishop of
   Alexandria was at the same time metropolitan of Egypt, Libya, and
   Pentapolis.

   But now immediately began the long series of contests with the Arian
   party, which had obtained influence at the court of Constantine, and
   had induced the emperor to recall Arius and his adherents from exile.
   Henceforth the personal fortunes of Athanasius are so inseparably
   interwoven with the history of the Arian controversy that Nicene and
   Athanasian are equivalent terms, and the different depositions and
   restorations of Athanasius denote so many depressions and victories of
   the Nicene orthodoxy. Five times did the craft and power of his
   opponents, upon the pretext of all sorts of personal and political
   offences, but in reality on account of his inexorable opposition to the
   Arian and Semi-Arian heresy, succeed in deposing and banishing him. The
   first exile he spent in Treves, the second chiefly in Rome, the third
   with the monks in the Egyptian desert; and he employed them in the
   written defence of his righteous cause. Then the Arian party, was
   distracted, first by internal division, and further by the death of the
   emperor Constantius (361), who was their chief support. The pagan
   Julian recalled the banished bishops of both parties, in the hope that
   they might destroy one another. Thus, Athanasius among them, who was
   the most downright opposite of the Christian-hating emperor, again
   received his bishopric. But when, by his energetic and wise
   administration, he rather restored harmony in his diocese, and sorely
   injured paganism, which he feared far less than Arianism, and thus
   frustrated the cunning plan of Julian, the emperor resorted to
   violence, and banished him as a dangerous disturber of the peace. For
   the fourth time Athanasius left Alexandria, but calmed his weeping
   friends with the prophetic words: "Be of good cheer; it is only a
   cloud, which will soon pass over." By presence of mind he escaped from
   an imperial ship on the Nile, which had two hired assassins on board.
   After Julian's death in 362 he was again recalled by Jovian. But the
   next emperor Valens, an Arian, issued in 367 an edict which again
   banished all the bishops who had been deposed under Constantius and
   restored by Julian. The aged Athanasius was obliged for the fifth time
   to leave his beloved flock, and kept himself concealed more than four
   months in the tomb of his father. Then Valens, boding ill from the
   enthusiastic adherence of the Alexandrians to their orthodox bishop,
   repealed the edict.

   From this time Athanasius had peace, and still wrote, at a great age,
   with the vigor of youth, against Apollinarianism. In the year 373
   [1920] he died, after an administration of nearly forty-six years, but
   before the conclusion of the Arian war. He had secured by his testimony
   the final victory of orthodoxy, but, like Moses, was called away from
   the earthly scene before the goal was reached.

   Athanasius, like many great men (from David and Paul to Napoleon and
   Schleiermacher), was very small of stature, [1921] somewhat stooping
   and emaciated by fasting and many troubles, but fair of countenance,
   with a piercing eye and a personal appearance of great power even over
   his enemies. [1922] His omnipresent activity, his rapid and his
   mysterious movements, his fearlessness, and his prophetic insight into
   the future, were attributed by his friends to divine assistance, by his
   enemies to a league with evil powers. Hence the belief in his magic
   art. [1923] His congregation in Alexandria and the people and monks of
   Egypt were attached to him through all the vicissitudes of his
   tempestuous life with equal fidelity and veneration. Gregory Nazianzen
   begins his enthusiastic panegyric with the words: "When I praise
   Athanasius, I praise virtue itself, because he combines all virtues in
   himself." Constantine the Younger called him "the man of God;"
   Theodoret, "the great enlightener;" and John of Damascus, the
   corner-stone of the church of God."

   All this is, indeed, very hyperbolical, after the fashion of degenerate
   Grecian rhetoric. Athanasius was not free from the faults of his age.
   But he is, on the whole, one of the purest, most imposing, and most
   venerable personages in the history of the church; and this judgment
   will now be almost universally accepted. [1924]

   He was (and there are few such) a theological and churchly character in
   magnificent, antique style. He was a man of one mould and one idea, and
   in this respect one-sided; yet in the best sense, as the same is true
   of most great men who are borne along with a mighty and comprehensive
   thought, and subordinate all others to it. So Paul lived and labored
   for Christ crucified, Gregory VII. for the Roman hierarchy, Luther for
   the doctrine of justification by faith, Calvin for the idea of the
   sovereign grace of God. It was the passion and the life-work of
   Athanasius to vindicate the deity of Christ, which he rightly regarded
   as the corner-stone of the edifice of the Christian faith, and without
   which he could conceive no redemption. For this truth he spent all his
   time and strength; for this he suffered deposition and twenty years of
   exile; for this he would have been at any moment glad to pour out his
   blood. For his vindication of this truth he was much hated, much loved,
   always respected or feared. In the unwavering conviction that he had
   the right and the protection of God on his side, he constantly
   disdained to call in the secular power for his ecclesiastical ends, and
   to degrade himself to an imperial courtier, as his antagonists often
   did.

   Against the Arians he was inflexible, because he believed they hazarded
   the essence of Christianity itself, and he allowed himself the most
   invidious and the most contemptuous terms. He calls them polytheists,
   atheists, Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, spies, worse
   persecutors than the heathen, liars, dogs, wolves, antichrists, and
   devils. But he confined himself to spiritual weapons, and never, like
   his successor Cyril a century later, used nor counselled measures of
   force. He suffered persecution, but did not practise it; he followed
   the maxim: Orthodoxy should persuade faith, not force it.

   Towards the unessential errors of good men, like those of Marcellus of
   Ancyra, he was indulgent. Of Origen he spoke with esteem, and with
   gratitude for his services, while Epiphanius, and even Jerome,
   delighted to blacken his memory and burn his bones. To the suspicions
   of the orthodoxy of Basil, whom, by the way, be never personally knew,
   he gave no ear, but pronounced his liberality a justifiable
   condescension to the weak. When he found himself compelled to write
   against Apollinaris, whom he esteemed and loved, he confined himself to
   the refutation of his error, without the mention of his name. He was
   more concerned for theological ideas than for words and formulas; even
   upon the shibboleth homoousios he would not obstinately insist,
   provided only the great truth of the essential and eternal Godhead of
   Christ were not sacrificed. At his last appearance in public, as
   president of the council of Alexandria in 362, he acted as mediator and
   reconciler of the contending parties, who, notwithstanding all their
   discord in the use of the terms ousia and hypostasis, were one in the
   ground-work of their faith.

   No one of all the Oriental fathers enjoyed so high consideration in the
   Western church as Athanasius. His personal sojourn in Rome and Treves,
   and his knowledge of the Latin tongue, contributed to this effect. He
   transplanted monasticism to the West. But it was his advocacy of the
   fundamental doctrine of Christianity that, more than all, gave him his
   Western reputation. Under his name the Symbolum Quicunque, of much
   later, and probably of French, origin, has found universal acceptance
   in the Latin church, and has maintained itself to this day in living
   use. His name is inseparable from the conflicts and the triumph of the
   doctrine of the holy Trinity.

   As an author, Athanasius is distinguished for theological depth and
   discrimination, for dialectical skill, and sometimes for fulminating
   eloquence. He everywhere evinces a triumphant intellectual superiority
   over his antagonists, and shows himself a veritable malleus
   haereticorum. He pursues them into all their hiding-places, and refutes
   all their arguments and their sophisms, but never loses sight of the
   main point of the controversy, to which he ever returns with renewed
   force. His views are governed by a strict logical connection; but his
   stormy fortunes prevented him from composing a large systematic work.
   Almost all his writings are occasional, wrung from him by
   circumstances; not a few of them were hastily written in exile.

   They may be divided as follows:

   1. Apologetic works in defence of Christianity. Among these are the two
   able and enthusiastic kindred productions of his youth (composed before
   325): "A Discourse against the Greeks," and "On the Incarnation of the
   Divine Word,)" [1925] which he already looked upon as the central idea
   of the Christian religion.

   2. Dogmatic and Controversial works in defence of the Nicene faith;
   which are at the same time very important to the history of the Arian
   controversies. Of these the following are directed against Arianism: An
   Encyclical Letter to all Bishops (written in 341); On the Decrees of
   the Council of Nicaea (352); On the Opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria
   (352); An Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya (356); four
   Orations against the Arians (358); A Letter to Serapion on the Death of
   Arius (358 or 359); A History of the Arians to the Monks (between 358
   and 360). To these are to be added four Epistles to Serapion on the
   Deity of the Holy Spirit (358), and two books Against Apollinaris, in
   defence of the full humanity of Christ (379).

   3. Works in his own Personal Defence: An Apology against the Arians
   (350); an Apology to Constantius (356); an Apology concerning his
   Flight (De fuga, 357 or 358); and several letters.

   4. Exegetical works; especially a Commentary on the Psalms, in which he
   everywhere finds types and prophecies of Christ and the church,
   according to the extravagant allegorizing method of the Alexandrian
   school; and a synopsis or compendium of the Bible. But the genuineness
   of these unimportant works is by many doubted. [1926]

   5. Ascetic and Practical works. Chief among these are his "Life of St.
   Anthony," composed about 365, or at all events after the death of
   Anthony, [1927] and his "Festal Letters," which have but recently
   become known. [1928] The Festal Letters give us a glimpse of his
   pastoral fidelity as bishop, and throw new light also on many of his
   doctrines, and on the condition of the church in his time. In these
   letters Athanasius, according to Alexandrian custom, announced
   annually, at Epiphany, to the clergy and congregations of Egypt, the
   time of the next Easter, and added edifying observations on passages of
   Scripture, and timely exhortations. These were read in the churches,
   during the Easter season, especially on Palm-Sunday. As Athanasius was
   bishop forty-five years, he would have written that number of Festal
   Letters, if he had not been several times prevented by flight or
   sickness. The letters were written in Greek, but soon translated into
   Syriac, and lay buried for centuries in the dust of a Nitrian cloister,
   till the research of Protestant Scholarship brought them again to the
   light.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1917] O pater tes orthodoxias .. So Epiphanius already calls him,
   Haer. 69, c. 2.

   [1918] So Rufinus relates, H. E. l. i. c. 14. Most Roman historians,
   Hermant, Tillemont, Butler, and the author of the Vita Athan. in the
   Bened. ed. (tom. i. p. iii.), reject this legend, partly on account of
   chronological difficulty, partly because it seemed incompatible with
   the dignity of such a saint. Möhler passes it in silence.

   [1919] This is the true date, according to the summaries of the
   newly-discovered Festal Letters of Athanasius, and not "a few weeks (or
   months rather] after the close of the council," as the editor of the
   English translation of the historical tracts of Athanasius (Oxford
   Library of the Fathers, 1843, Preface, p. xxi), and even Stanley (I. c.
   p. 325), still say. The older hypothesis rests on a misapprehension of
   the pente menesin a passage of Athanasius, Apol. pro fuga sua, tom. i.
   P. 1, p. 140, which Theodoret erroneously dates from the close of the
   council of Nicaea, instead of the readmission of the Meletians into the
   fellowship of the church (H. E. i. 26). Alexander died in 328, not in
   326. See particulars in Larsow, l. c. p. 26, and § 121 above.

   [1920] Opinions concerning the year of his death waver between 371 and
   373. As he was bishop forty-six years, and came to the see in 328 (not
   326, as formerly supposed), he cannot have died before 372 or 373.

   [1921] Juliancalled him contemptuously (Ep. 51) mede `aner, all
   anthropiskos euteles .

   [1922] Comp. Gregory Naz. in his Eulogy.

   [1923] This belief embodied itself in the Arian form of the legend of
   St. George of Cappadocia, the Arian bishop elected in opposition to
   Athanasius, and killed by the populace in Alexandria, in his contest
   with the wizard Athanasius. In this way Arians revenged themselves on
   the memory of their great adversary. Afterwards the wizard became a
   dragon, whom George on his horse overcomes. According to others, George
   was a martyr under Diocletian.

   [1924] The rationalistic historian Henke(Geschichte der christl.
   Kirche, 5th ed. 1818, i. p. 212) called him, indeed, a "haughty
   hard-head," and the "author of many broils and of the unhappiness of
   many thousand men." But the age of the rationalistic debasement of
   history, thank God, is past. Quite different is the judgment of Gibbon,
   who despised the faith of Athanasiis, yet could not withhold from him
   personally the tribute of his admiration. "We have seldom," says he in
   ch. xxi. of his celebrated work, "an opportunity of observing, either
   in active or speculative life, what effect may be produced, or what
   obstacles may be surmounted by the force of a single mind, when it is
   inflexibly applied to the pursuit of a single object. The immortal name
   of Athanasius will never be separated from the Catholic doctrine of the
   Trinity, to whose defence he consecrated every moment and every faculty
   of his being .... Amidst the storms of persecution the archbishop of
   Alexandria was patient of labor, jealous of fame, careless of safety;
   and although his mind was tainted by the contagion of fanaticism,
   Athanasius displayed a superiority of charater and abilities which
   would have qualified him far better than the degenerate sons of
   Constantinefor the government of a great monarchy." Dr. Baurthus
   characterizes Athanasius (Vorlesungen über die Dogmengeschichte, vol.
   i. ii. p. 41): "His talent for speculative dogmatic investigations, in
   which he knew how to lay hold, sharply and clearly, of the salient
   point of the dogma, was as great as the power with which he stood at
   the head of a party and managed a theological controversy. ... The
   devotion, with which he defended the cause of orthodoxy, and the
   importance of the dogma, which was the subject of dispute, have made
   his name one of the most venerable in the church. In modern times he
   has been frequently charged with a passionate love for theological
   controversy. But the most recent ecclesiastical and doctrinal
   historians are more and more unanimous in according to him a pure zeal
   for Christian truth, and a profound sense for the apprehension of the
   same. It is a strong testimony for the purity of his character that his
   congregation at Antioch adhered to him with tender affection to the
   last." A. De Broglie(L'église et l'empire romain au IVesiècle, vol. ii.
   p. 25) finds the principal quality of the mind of Athanasius in "un
   rare mélange de droiture de sens et de subtilité de raisonnement. Dans
   la discussion la plus compliquée rien ne lui échappait, mais rien no
   l'ébranlait. Il démêlait toutes les nuances de la pensée de son
   adversaire, en pénétrait tous les détours; mais il ne perdait jamais de
   vue le point principal et le but du débat .... Unissant lea qualités
   des deux écoles, il discutait comme un Grec et concluait nettement
   comme un Latin. Cette combinaison originale, relevée par une
   indomptable fermeté de caractère, fait encore aujourd'hui le seul
   mérite qu' à distance nous puissions pleinement apprécier dans sea
   écrits."

   [1925] Logos kata Hellenon(or Contra Gentes), and Peri tes
   enanthropeseos tou log'ou in the first volume, Part 1, of the Bened.
   ed. pp. 1-97. The latter tract (De incarnatione Verbi Dei) against
   unbelievers is not to be confounded with the tract written much later
   (a.d.364), and by some considered spurious: De incarnations Dei Verbi
   et contra Arianos, tom. i. Pars ii. pp. 871-890.

   [1926] Comp. the arguments on both sides in the Opera, tom. ii. p. 1004
   sqq. and tom. iii. p. 124 sqq.

   [1927] Opera, tom. ii. (properly tom. i. Pars. ii.), pp. 785-866. Comp.
   above, § 35.

   [1928] Comp. the cited editions of the Festal Letters by Cureton,
   Larsow, and Angelo Mai.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 164. Basil the Great.

   I. S. Basilius Caes. Cappad. archiepisc.: Opera omnia quae exstant vel
   quae ejus nomine circumferuntur, Gr. et Lat. ed. Jul. Garnier,
   presbyter and monk of the Bened. order. Paris, 1721-'30. 3 vols. fol.
   Eadem ed. Parisina altera, emendata et aucta a Lud. de Sinner, Par.
   (Gaume Fratres) 1839, 8 tomi in 6 Partes (an elegant and convenient
   ed.). Reprinted also by Migne, Par. 1857, in 4 vols. (Patrol. Gr. tom
   xxix, xxxii.). The first edition of St. Basil was superintended by
   Erasmus with Froben in Basle, 1532. Comp. also Opera Bas. dogmatica
   selecta in Thilo's Bibl. Patr. Gr. dogm. vol. ii. Lips. 1854 (under
   care of J. D. H. Goldhorn, and containing the Libri iii. adversus
   Eunomium, and Liber i. de Spiritu Sancto).

   II. Ancient accounts and descriptions of Basil in the funeral
   discourses and eulogies of Gregory Naz. (Oratio xliii.), Gregory Nyss.,
   Amphilochius, Ephraem Syrus. Garnier: Vita S. Basilii, in his edition
   of the Opera, tom. iii. pp. xxxviii.-ccliv. (in the new Paris ed. of
   1839; or tom. i. in Migne's reprint). Comp. also the Vitae in the Acta
   Sanctorum, sub Jan. 14, by Hermant, Tillemont (tom. ix.), Fabricius
   (Bibl. tom. ix.), Cave, Pfeiffer, Schröckh (Part xiii. pp. 8-220),
   Böhringer, W. Klose (Basilius der Grosse, Stralsund, 1835), and Fialon
   (Etude historique et littéraire sur S. Basile, Par. 1866).

   The Asiatic province of Cappadocia produced in the fourth century the
   three distinguished church teachers, Basil and the two Gregories, who
   stand in strong contrast with the general character of their
   countrymen; for the Cappadocians are described as a cowardly, servile,
   and deceitful race. [1929]

   Basil was born about the year 329, [1930] at Caesarea, the capital of
   Cappadocia, in the bosom of a wealthy and pious family, whose ancestors
   had distinguished themselves as martyrs. The seed of piety had been
   planted in him by his grandmother, St. Macrina, and his mother, St.
   Emmelia. He had four brothers and five sisters, who all led a religious
   life; two of his brothers, Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, and Peter, bishop
   of Sebaste, and his sister, Macrina the Younger, are, like himself,
   among the saints of the Eastern church. He received his literary
   education at first from his father, who was a rhetorician; afterwards
   at school in Constantinople (347), where he enjoyed the instruction and
   personal esteem of the celebrated Libanius; and in Athens, where he
   spent several years, between 351 and 355, [1931] studying rhetoric,
   mathematics, and philosophy, in company with his intimate friend
   Gregory Nazianzen, and at the same time with prince Julian the
   Apostate.

   Athens, partly through its ancient renown and its historical
   traditions, partly by excellent teachers of philosophy and eloquence,
   Sophists, as they were called in an honorable sense, among whom
   Himerius and Proaeresius were at that time specially conspicuous, was
   still drawing a multitude of students from all quarters of Greece, and
   even from the remote provinces of Asia. Every Sophist had his own
   school and party, which was attached to him with incredible zeal, and
   endeavored to gain every newly arriving student to its master. In these
   efforts, as well as in the frequent literary contests and debates of
   the various schools among themselves, there was not seldom much rude
   and wild behavior. To youth who were not yet firmly grounded in
   Christianity, residence in Athens, and occupation with the ancient
   classics, were full of temptation, and might easily kindle an
   enthusiasm for heathenism, which, however, had already lost its
   vitality, and was upheld solely by the artificial means of magic,
   theurgy, and an obscure mysticism. [1932]

   Basil and Gregory remained steadfast, and no poetical or rhetorical
   glitter could fade the impressions of a pious training. Gregory says of
   their studies in Athens, in his forty-third Oration: [1933] "We knew
   only two streets of the city, the first and the more excellent one to
   the churches, and to the ministers of the altar; the other, which,
   however, we did not so highly esteem, to the public schools and to the
   teachers of the sciences. The streets to the theatres, games, and
   places of unholy amusements, we left to others. Our holiness was our
   great concern; our sole aim was to be called and to be Christians. In
   this we placed our whole glory." [1934] In a later oration on classic
   studies Basil encourages them, but admonishes that they should be
   pursued with caution, and with constant regard to the great Christian
   purpose of eternal life, to which all earthly objects and attainments
   are as shadows and dreams to reality. In plucking the rose one should
   beware of the thorns, and, like the bee, should not only delight
   himself with the color and the fragrance, but also gain useful honey
   from the flower. [1935]

   The intimate friendship of Basil and Gregory, lasting from fresh,
   enthusiastic youth till death, resting on an identity of spiritual and
   moral aims, and sanctified by Christian piety, is a lovely and engaging
   chapter in the history of the fathers, and justifies a brief episode in
   a field not yet entered by any church historian.

   With all the ascetic narrowness of the time, which fettered even these
   enlightened fathers, they still had minds susceptible to science and
   art and the beauties of nature. In the works of Basil and of the two
   Gregories occur pictures of nature such as we seek in vain in the
   heathen classics. The descriptions of natural scenery among the poets
   and philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome can be easily compressed
   within a few pages. Socrates, as we learn from Plato, was of the
   opinion that we can learn nothing from trees and fields, and hence he
   never took a walk; he was so bent upon self-knowledge, as the true aim
   of all learning, that he regarded the whole study of nature as useless,
   because it did not tend to make man either more intelligent or more
   virtuous. The deeper sense of the beauty of nature is awakened by the
   religion of revelation alone, which teaches us to see everywhere in
   creation the traces of the power, the wisdom, and the goodness of God.
   The book of Ruth, the book of Job, many Psalms, particularly the 104th,
   and the parables, are without parallel in Grecian or Roman literature.
   The renowned naturalist, Alexander von Humboldt, collected some of the
   most beautiful descriptions of nature from the fathers for his
   purposes. [1936] They are an interesting proof of the transfiguring
   power of the spirit of Christianity even upon our views of nature.

   A breath of sweet sadness runs through them, which is entirely foreign
   to classical antiquity. This is especially manifest in Gregory of
   Nyssa, the brother of Basil. "When I see," says he, for example, "every
   rocky ridge, every valley, every plain, covered with new-grown grass;
   and then the variegated beauty of the trees, and at my feet the lilies
   doubly enriched by nature with sweet odors and gorgeous colors; when I
   view in the distance the sea, to which the changing cloud leads out--my
   soul is seized with sadness which is not without delight. And when in
   autumn fruits disappear, leaves fall, boughs stiffen, stripped of their
   beauteous dress--we sink with the perpetual and regular vicissitude
   into the harmony of wonder-working nature. He who looks through this
   with the thoughtful eye of the soul, feels the littleness of man in the
   greatness of the universe." [1937] Yet we find sunny pictures also,
   like the beautiful description of spring in an oration of Gregory
   Nazianzen on the martyr Mamas. [1938]

   A second characteristic of these representations of nature, and for the
   church historian the most important, is the reference of earthly beauty
   to an eternal and heavenly principle, and that glorification of God in
   the works of creation, which transplanted itself from the Psalms and
   the book of Job into the Christian church. In his homilies on the
   history of the Creation, Basil describes the mildness of the serene
   nights in Asia Minor, where the stars, "the eternal flowers of heaven,
   raised the spirit of man from the visible to the invisible." In the
   oration just mentioned, after describing the spring in the most lovely
   and life-like colors, Gregory Nazianzen proceeds: "Everything praises
   God and glorifies Him with unutterable tones; for everything shall
   thanks be offered also to God by me, and thus shall the song of those
   creatures, whose song of praise I here utter, be also ours .... Indeed
   it is now [alluding to the Easter festival] the spring-time of the
   world, the spring-time of the spirit, spring-time for souls,
   spring-time for bodies, a visible spring, an invisible spring, in which
   we also shall there have part, if we here be rightly transformed, and
   enter as new men upon a new life." Thus the earth becomes a vestibule
   of heaven, the beauty of the body is consecrated an image of the beauty
   of the spirit.

   The Greek fathers placed the beauty of nature above the works of art,
   having a certain prejudice against art on account of the heathen abuses
   of it. "If thou seest a splendid building, and the view of its
   colonnades would transport thee, look quickly at the vault of the
   heavens and the open fields, on which the flocks are feeding on the
   shore of the sea. Who does not despise every creation of art, when in
   the silence of the heart he early wonders at the rising sun, as it
   pours its golden (crocus-yellow) light over the horizon? when, resting
   at a spring in the deep grass or under the dark shade of thick trees,
   he feeds his eye upon the dim vanishing distance?" So Chrysostom
   exclaims from his monastic solitude near Antioch, and Humboldt [1939]
   adds the ingenious remark: "It was as if eloquence had found its
   element, its freedom, again at the fountain of nature in the then
   wooded mountain regions of Syria and Asia Minor."

   In the rough times of the first introduction of Christianity among the
   Celtic and Germanic tribes, who had worshipped the dismal powers of
   nature in rude symbols, an opposition to intercourse with nature
   appeared, like that which we find in Tertullian to pagan art; and
   church assemblies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, at Tours
   (1163) and at Paris (1209), forbid the monks the sinful reading of
   books on nature, till the renowned scholastics, Albert, the Great (
   1280), and the gifted Roger Bacon ( 1294), penetrated the mysteries of
   nature and raised the study of it again to consideration and honor.

   We now return to the life of Basil. After finishing his studies in
   Athens he appeared in his native city of Caesarea as a rhetorician. But
   he soon after (a.d. 360) took a journey to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt,
   to become acquainted with the monastic life; and he became more and
   more enthusiastic for it. He distributed his property to the poor, and
   withdrew to a lonely romantic district in Pontus, near the cloister in
   which his mother Emmelia, with his sister Macrina, and other pious and
   cultivated virgins, were living. "God has shown me," he wrote to his
   friend Gregory, "a region which exactly suits my mode of life; it is,
   in truth, what in our happy jestings we often wished. What imagination
   showed us in the distance, that I now see before me. A high mountain,
   covered with thick forest, is watered towards the north by fresh
   perennial streams. At the foot of the mountain a wide plain spreads
   out, made fruitful by the vapors which moisten it. The surrounding
   forest, in which many varieties of trees crowd together, shuts me off
   like a strong castle. The wilderness is bounded by two deep ravines. On
   one side the stream, where it rushes foaming down from the mountain,
   forms a barrier hard to cross; on the other a broad ridge obstructs
   approach. My hut is so placed upon the summit, that I overlook the
   broad plain, as well as the whole course of the Iris, which is more
   beautiful and copious than the Strymon near Amphipolis. The river of my
   wilderness, more rapid than any other that I know, breaks upon the wall
   of projecting rock, and rolls foaming into the abyss: to the mountain
   traveller, a charming, wonderful sight; to the natives, profitable for
   its abundant fisheries. Shall I describe to you the fertilizing vapors
   which rise from the (moistened) earth, the cool air which rises from
   the (moving) mirror of the water? Shall I tell of the lovely singing of
   the birds and the richness of blooming plants? What delights me above
   all is the silent repose of the place. It is only now and then visited
   by huntsmen; for my wilderness nourishes deer and herds of wild goats,
   not your bears and your wolves. How would I exchange a place with him?
   Alcmaeon, after he had found the Echinades, wished to wander no
   further." [1940]

   This romantic picture shows that the monastic life had its ideal and
   poetic side for cultivated minds. In this region Basil, free from all
   cares, distractions, and interruptions of worldly life, thought that he
   could best serve God. "What is more blessed than to imitate on earth
   the choir of angels, at break of day to rise to prayer, and praise the
   Creator with anthems and songs; then go to labor in the clear radiance
   of the sun, accompanied everywhere by prayer, seasoning work with
   praise, as if with salt? Silent solitude is the beginning of
   purification of the soul. For the mind, if it be not disturbed from
   without, and do not lose itself through the senses in the world,
   withdraws into itself, and rises to thoughts of God." In the Scriptures
   he found, "as in a store of all medicines, the true remedy for his
   sickness."

   Nevertheless, he had also to find that flight from the city was not
   flight from his own self. "I have well forsaken," says he in his second
   Epistle, [1941] "my residence in the city as a source of a thousand
   evils, but I have not been able to forsake myself. l am like a man who,
   unaccustomed to the sea, becomes seasick, and gets out of the large
   ship, because it rocks more, into a small skiff, but still even there
   keeps the dizziness and nausea. So is it with me; for while I carry
   about with me the passions which dwell in me, I am everywhere tormented
   with the same restlessness, so that I really get not much help from
   this solitude." In the sequel of the letter, and elsewhere, he
   endeavors, however, to show that seclusion from worldly business,
   celibacy, solitude, perpetual occupation with the Holy Scriptures, and
   with the life of godly men, prayer and contemplation, and a
   corresponding ascetic severity of outward life, are necessary for
   taming the wild passions, and for attaining the true quietness of the
   soul.

   He succeeded in drawing his friend Gregory to himself. Together they
   prosecuted their prayer, studies, and manual labor; made extracts from
   the works of Origen, which we possess, under the name of Philocalia, as
   the joint work of the two friends; and wrote monastic rules which
   contributed largely to extend and regulate the coenobite life.

   In the year 364 Basil was made presbyter against his will, and in 370,
   with the co-operation of Gregory and his father, was elected bishop of
   Caesarea and metropolitan of all Cappadocia. In this capacity he had
   fifty country bishops under him, and devoted himself thenceforth to the
   direction of the church and the fighting of Arianism, which had again
   come into power through the emperor Valens in the East. He endeavored
   to secure to the catholic faith the victory, first by close connection
   with the orthodox West, and then by a certain liberality in accepting
   as sufficient, in regard to the not yet symbolically settled doctrine
   of the Holy Ghost, that the Spirit should not be considered a creature.
   But the strict orthodox party, especially the monks, demanded the
   express acknowledgment of the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and violently
   opposed Basil. The Arians pressed him still more. The emperor wished to
   reduce Cappadocia to the heresy, and threatened the bishop by his
   prefects with confiscation, banishment, and death. Basil replied:
   "Nothing more? Not one of these things touches me. His property cannot
   be forfeited, who has none; banishment I know not, for I am restricted
   to no place, and am the guest of God, to whom the whole earth belongs;
   for martyrdom I am unfit, but death is a benefactor to me, for it sends
   me more quickly to God, to whom I live and move; I am also in great
   part already dead, and have been for a long time hastening to the
   grave."

   The emperor was about to banish him, when his son, six years of age,
   was suddenly taken sick, and the physicians gave up all hope. Then he
   sent for Basil, and his son recovered, though he died soon after. The
   imperial prefect also recovered from a sickness, and ascribed his
   recovery to the prayer of the bishop, towards whom he had previously
   behaved haughtily. Thus this danger was averted by special divine
   assistance.

   But other difficulties, perplexities, and divisions, continually met
   him, to obstruct the attainment of his desire, the restoration of the
   peace of the church. These storms, and all sorts of hostilities, early
   wasted his body. He died in 379, two years before the final victory of
   the Nicene orthodoxy, with the words: "Into Thy hands, O Lord I commit
   my spirit; Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, God of truth." [1942] He was
   borne to the grave by a deeply sorrowing multitude.

   Basil was poor, and almost always sickly; he had only a single worn-out
   garment, and ate almost nothing but bread, salt, and herbs. The care of
   the poor and sick he took largely upon himself. He founded in the
   vicinity of Caesarea that magnificent hospital, Basilias, which we have
   already mentioned, chiefly for lepers, who were often entirely
   abandoned in those regions, and left to the saddest fate; he himself
   took in the sufferers, treated them as brethren, and, in spite of their
   revolting condition, was not afraid to kiss them. [1943]

   Basil is distinguished as a pulpit orator and as a theologian, and
   still more as a shepherd of souls and a church ruler; and in the
   history of monasticism he holds a conspicuous place. [1944] In
   classical culture he yields to none of his contemporaries, and is
   justly placed with the two Gregories among the very first writers among
   the Greek fathers. His style is pure, elegant, and vigorous. Photius
   thought that one who wished to become a panegyrist, need take neither
   Demosthenes nor Cicero for his model, but Basil only.

   Of his works, his Five Books against Eunomius, written in 361, in
   defence of the deity of Christ, and his work on the Holy Ghost, written
   in 375, at the request of his friend Amphilochius, are important to the
   history of doctrine. [1945] He at first, from fear of Sabellianism,
   recoiled from the strong doctrine of the homoousia; but the persecution
   of the Arians drove him to a decided confession. Of importance in the
   East is the Liturgy ascribed to him, which, with that of St.
   Chrysostom, is still in use, but has undoubtedly reached its present
   form by degrees. We have also from St. Basil nine Homilies on the
   history of the Creation, which are full of allegorical fancies, but
   enjoyed the highest esteem in the ancient church, and were extensively
   used by Ambrose and somewhat by Augustine, in similar works; [1946]
   Homilies on the Psalms; Homilies on various subjects; several ascetic
   and moral treatises; [1947] and three hundred and sixty-five Epistles,
   [1948] which furnish much information concerning his life and times.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1929] Particularly in the Letters of Isidore of Pelusium, who
   flourished in the beginning of the fifth century. Gregory Nazianzen
   gives a more favorable picture of the Cappadocians, and boasts of their
   orthodoxy, which, however, might easily be united with the faults above
   mentioned, especially in the East.

   [1930] According to Garnier; Comp. his Vita Bas. c. 1, § 2. Fabricius
   puts the birth erroneously into the year 816.

   [1931] On the time of his residence in Athens, see Tillemont and
   Garnier.

   [1932] On this Athenian student-life of that day see especially the
   43d, ch. 14 sqq. (in older editions the 20th) Oration of Gregory
   Nazianzen, and Libanius, De vita sua, p. 13, ed. Reiske.

   [1933] The Oratio funebris in laudem Basilii M. c. 21 (Opera, ed.
   Migne, ii. p. 523).

   [1934] Hemin de to mega pragma kai onoma, Christianous kai einai kai
   onomazesthai.

   [1935] Oratio ad adolescentes, quomodo possint ex gentilium libris
   fructum capere? or more simply, De legendis libris gentilium (in
   Gamier's ed. tom. ii. P. i. pp. 243-259). This famous oration, which
   helped to preserve at least some regard for classical studies in the
   middle age, has been several times edited separately; as by Hugo
   Grotius (with a new Latin translation and Prolegomena), 1623; Joh.
   Potter, 1694; J. H. Majus, 1714; &c.

   [1936] In the second volume of his Kosmos, Stuttgart and Tübingen,
   1847, p. 27 ff. Humboldt justly observes, p. 26: "The tendency of
   Christian sentiment was, to prove from the universal order and from the
   beauty of nature the greatness and goodness of the Creator. Such a
   tendency, to glorify the Deity from His works, occasioned a prepension
   to descriptions of nature." The earliest and largest picture of this
   kind he finds in the apologetic writer, Minucius Felix. Then he draws
   several examples from Basil (for whom he confesses he had "long
   entertained a special predilection"), Epist. xiv. and Epist. ccxxiii.
   (tom. iii. ed. Gamier), from Gregory of Nyasa, and from Chrysostom.

   [1937] From several fragments of Gregory of Nyasa combined and
   translated (into German) by Humboldt, l.c. p. 29 f.

   [1938] See Ullmann's Gregor von Nazianz, p. 210 ff.

   [1939] L.. c. p. 30.

   [1940] Ep. xiv. Gregorio hetairo(tom. iii. p. 132, ed. nova Paris.
   Garn.), elegantly reproduced in German by Humboldt, l.c. p. 28, with
   the observation: "In this simple description of landscape and of
   forest-life, sentiments are expressed which more intimately blend with
   those of modem times, than anything that has come down to us from Greek
   or Roman antiquity."

   [1941] Addressed to his friend Gregory, Ep. ii. c. 1 (tom. iii. p.
   100).

   [1942] With this prayer of David, Ps. xxxi. 5, Lutheralso took leave of
   the world.

   [1943] Greg. Naz. Orat. xliii. 63, p. 817 sq.

   [1944] K. Hase (§ 102) thus briefly and concisely characterizes him:
   "An admirer of Libanius and St. Anthony, as zealous for science as for
   monkery, greatest in church government."

   [1945] The former in tom. i., the latter in tom. iii., ed. Garnier.
   Both are incorporated in Thilo's Bibliotheca Patr. Graec. dogm. tom.
   ii.

   [1946] Exaemeron, or Homiliae ix. in Hexaëmeron. Opera, i. pp. 1-125,
   ed. Garnier (new ed.). An extended analysis of these sermons is given
   by Schröckh, xiii. pp. 168-181.

   [1947] Moralia, or short ethical rules, Constitutiones monasticae, &c.,
   in tom. ii.

   [1948] Including some spurious, some doubtful, and some from other
   persons. Tom. iii, pp. 97-681. The numbering of Garnier differs from
   those of former editors.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 165. Gregory of Nyssa.

   I. S. Gregorius Nyssenus: Opera omnia, quae reperiri potuerunt, Gr. et
   Lat., nunc primum e mss. codd. edita, stud. Front. Ducaei (Fronto le
   Duc, a learned Jesuit). Paris, 1615, 2 vols. fol. To be added to this.
   Appendix Gregorii ex ed. Jac. Gretseri, Par. 1618, fol.; and the
   Antirrhetoricus adv. Apollinar., first edited by L. Al. Zacagni,
   Collectanea monum. vet. eccl. Graec. et Lat. Rom. 1698, and in
   Gallandi, Bibliotheca, tom. vi. Later editions of the Opera by Aeg.
   Morél, Par. 1638, 3 vols. fol. ("moins belle que cello de 1615, mais
   plus ample et plus commode ... peu correcte," according to Brunet); by
   Migne, Petit-Montrouge (Par.), 1858, 3 vols.; and by Franc. Oehler,
   Halis Saxonum, 1865 sqq. (Tom. i. continens libros dogmaticos, but only
   in the Greek original.) Oehler has also commenced an edition of select
   treatises of Gregory of Nyasa in the original with a German version.
   The Benedictines of St. Maur had prepared the critical apparatus for an
   edition of Gregory, but it was scattered during the French Revolution.
   Angelo Mai, in the Nov. Patrum Biblioth. tom. iv. Pars i. pp. 1-53
   (Rom. 1847), has edited a few writings of Gregory unknown before, viz.,
   a sermon Adversus Arium et Sabellium, a sermon De Spiritu Sancto adv.
   Macedonianos, and a fragment De processione Spiritus S. a Filio
   (doubtful).

   II. Lives in the Acta Sanctorum, and in Butler, sub Mart. 9. Tillemont:
   Mém. tom. ix. p. 561 sqq. Schröckh: Part xiv. pp. 1-147. Jul. Rupp:
   Gregors des Bischofs von Nyssa Leben und Meinungen. Leipz. 1834
   (unsatisfactory). W. Möller: Gregorii Nyss. doctrina de hominis natura,
   etc. Halis, 1854, and article in Herzog's Encykl. vol. v. p. 354 sqq.

   Gregory of Nyssa was a younger brother of Basil, and the third son of
   his parents. Of his honorable descent he made no account. Blood,
   wealth, and splendor, says he, we should leave to the friends of the
   world; the Christian's lineage is his affinity with the divine, his
   fatherland is virtue, his freedom is the sonship of God. He was weakly
   and timid, and born not so much for practical life, as for study and
   speculation. He formed his mind chiefly upon the writings of Origen,
   and under the direction of his brother, whom he calls his father and
   preceptor. Further than this his early life is unknown.

   After spending a short time as a rhetorician he broke away from the
   world, retired into solitude in Pontus, and became enamored of the
   ascetic life.

   Quite in the spirit of the then widely-spread tendency towards the
   monastic life, he, though himself married, commends virginity in a
   special work, as a higher grade of perfection, and depicts the
   happiness of one who is raised above the incumbrances and snares of
   marriage, and thus, as he thinks, restored to the original state of man
   in Paradise. [1949] "From all the evils of marriage," he says,
   "virginity is free; it has no lost children, no lost husband to bemoan;
   it is always with its Bridegroom, and delights in its devout exercises,
   and, when death comes, it is not separated from him, but united with
   him forever." The essence of spiritual virginity, however, in his
   opinion, by no means consists merely in the small matter of sensual
   abstinence, but in the purity of the whole life. Virginity is to him
   the true philosophy, the perfect freedom. The purpose of asceticism in
   general he considered to be not the affliction of the body--which is
   only a means--but the easiest possible motion of the spiritual
   functions.

   His brother Basil, in 372, called him against his will from his learned
   ease into his own vicinity as bishop of Nyssa, an inconsiderable town
   of Cappadocia. He thought it better that the place should receive its
   honor from his brother, than that his brother should receive his honor
   from his place. And so it turned out. As Gregory labored zealously for
   the Nicene faith, he drew the hatred of the Arians, who succeeded in
   deposing him at a synod in 376, and driving him into exile. But two
   years later, when the emperor Valens died and Gratian revoked the
   sentences of banishment, Gregory recovered his bishopric.

   Now other trials came upon him. His brothers and sisters died in rapid
   succession. He delivered a eulogy upon Basil, whom he greatly
   venerated, and he described the life and death of his beautiful and
   noble sister Macrina, who, after the death of her betrothed, that she
   might remain true to him, chose single life, and afterwards retired
   with her mother into seclusion, and exerted great influence over her
   brothers.

   Into her mouth he put his theological instructions on the soul, death,
   resurrection, and final restoration. [1950] She died in the arms of
   Gregory, with this prayer: "Thou, O God, hast taken from me the fear of
   death. Thou hast granted me, that the end of this life should be the
   beginning of true life. Thou givest our bodies in their time to the
   sleep of death, and awakest them again from sleep with the last trumpet
   .... Thou hast delivered us from the curse and from sin by Thyself
   becoming both for us; Thou hast bruised the head of the serpent, hast
   broken open the gates of hell, hast overcome him who had the power of
   death, and hast opened to us the way to, resurrection. For the ruin of
   the enemy and the security of our life, Thou hast put upon those who
   feared Thee a sign, the sign of Thy holy cross, O eternal God, to whom
   I am betrothed from the womb, whom my soul has loved with all its
   might, to whom I have dedicated, from my youth up till now, my flesh
   and my soul. Oh! send to me an angel of light, to lead me to the place
   of refreshment, where is the water of peace, in the bosom of the holy
   fathers. Thou who hast broken the flaming sword, and bringest back to
   Paradise the man who is crucified with Thee and flees to Thy mercy.
   Remember me also in Thy kingdom!... Forgive me what in word, deed, or
   thought, I have done amiss! Blameless and without spot may my soul be
   received into Thy hands, as a burnt-offering before Thee!" [1951]

   Gregory attended the ecumenical council of Constantinople, and
   undoubtedly, since he was one of the most eminent theologians of the
   time, exerted a powerful influence there, and according to a later, but
   erroneous, tradition, he composed the additions to the Nicene Creed
   which were there sanctioned. [1952] The council intrusted to him, as
   "one of the pillars of catholic orthodoxy," a tour of visitation to
   Arabia and Jerusalem, where disturbances had broken out which
   threatened a schism. He found Palestine in a sad condition, and
   therefore dissuaded a Cappadocian abbot, who asked his advice about a
   pilgrimage of his monks to Jerusalem. "Change of place," says he,
   "brings us no nearer God, but where thou art, God can come to thee, if
   only the inn of thy soul is ready .... It is better to go out of the
   body and to raise one's self to the Lord, than to leave Cappadocia to
   journey to Palestine." He did not succeed in making peace, and he
   returned to Cappadocia lamenting that there were in Jerusalem men "who
   showed a hatred towards their brethren, such as they ought to have only
   towards the devil, towards sin, and towards the avowed enemies of the
   Saviour."

   Of his later life we know very little. He was in Constantinople thrice
   afterwards, in 383, 385, and 394, and he died about the year 395.

   The wealth of his intellectual life he deposited in his numerous
   writings, above all in his controversial doctrinal works: Against
   Eunomius; Against Apollinaris; On the Deity of the Son and the Holy
   Ghost; On the difference between ousia and hypostasis in God; and in
   his catechetical compend of the Christian faith. [1953] The beautiful
   dialogue with his sister Macrina on the soul and the resurrection has
   been already mentioned. Besides these he wrote many Homilies,
   especially on the creation of the world, and of man, [1954] on the life
   of Moses, on the Psalms, on Ecclesiastes, on the Song of Solomon, on
   the Lord's Prayer, on the Beatitudes; Eulogies on eminent martyrs and
   saints (St. Stephen, the Forty Martyrs, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Ephrem,
   Meletius, his brother Basil); various valuable ascetic tracts; and a
   biography of his sister Macrina, addressed to the monk Olympios.

   Gregory was more a man of thought than of action. He had a fine
   metaphysical head, and did lasting service in the vindication of the
   mystery of the Trinity and the incarnation, and in the accurate
   distinction between essence and hypostasis. Of all the church teachers
   of the Nicene age he is the nearest to Origen. He not only follows his
   sometimes utterly extravagant allegorical method of interpretation, but
   even to a great extent falls in with his dogmatic views. [1955] With
   him, as with Origen, human freedom plays a great part. Both are
   idealistic, and sometimes, without intending it or knowing it, fall
   into contradiction with the church doctrine, especially in eschatology.
   Gregory adopts, for example, the doctrine of the final restoration of
   all things. The plan of redemption is in his view absolutely universal,
   and embraces all spiritual beings. Good is the only positive reality;
   evil is the negative, the non-existent, and must finally abolish
   itself, because it is not of God. Unbelievers must indeed pass through
   a second death, in order to be purged from the filthiness of the flesh.
   But God does not give them up, for they are his property, spiritual
   natures allied to him. His love, which draws pure souls easily and
   without pain to itself, becomes a purifying fire to all who cleave to
   the earthly, till the impure element is driven off. As all comes forth
   from God, so must all return into him at last.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1949] That he was married appears from his own concession, De
   virginitate, c. 3, where by Theosebia he means his wife (not, as some
   earlier Roman scholars, and Rupp, l. c. p. 25, suppose, his sister),
   and from Gregory Nazianzen's letter of condolence, Ep. 95. He laments
   that his eulogy of parthenia can no longer bring him the desired fruit.
   Theosebia seems to have lived till 384. Gregory Nazianzen, in his short
   eulogy of her, says that she rivalled her brothers-in-law (Basil and
   Peter) who were in the priesthood.

   [1950] In his dialogue, De anima et resurrectione (Peri psuches kai
   anastaseos meta tes idias adelphes Makrines dialogo?s), Opp. iii. 181
   sqq. (ed. Morell. 1638), also separately edited by J. G. Krabinger,
   Lips. 1837, and more recently, together with his biography of his
   sister, by Franc. Oehler, with a German translation, Leipz. 1858. The
   last-mentioned edition is at the same time the first volume of a
   projected Select Library of the Fathers, presenting the original text
   with a new German translation. The dialogue was written after the death
   of his brother Basil, and occasioned by it.

   [1951] Nyss. Peri tou biou tes makarias Makrines.

   [1952] In Niceph. Call. H. E. xiii. 13. These additions were in use
   several years before 881, and are found in Epiphanius, Anchorate, n.
   120 (tom. ii. p. 122).

   [1953] The Logos katechetikos ho megasstands worthily by the side of
   the similar work of Origen, De principiis. Separate edition, Gr. and
   Lat. with notes, by J. G. Krabinger, Munich, 1888.

   [1954] The Hexaëmeron of Gregory is a supplement to his brother Basil's
   Hexaëmeron, and discusses the more obscure metaphysical questions
   connected with this subject. His book on the Workmanship of Man, though
   written first, may be regarded as a continuation of the Hexaëmeron, and
   beautifully sets forth the spiritual and royal dignity and destination
   of man, for whom the world was prepared and adorned as his palace.

   [1955] On his relation to Origen, Comp. the appendix of Rupp, l.c. pp.
   243-262.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 166. Gregory Nazianzen.

   I. S. Gregorius Theologus, vulgo Nazianzenus: Opera omnia, Gr. et Lat.
   opera et studio monachorum S. Benedicti e congreg. S. Mauri
   (Clemencet). Paris, 1778, tom. i. (containing his orations). This
   magnificent edition (one of the finest of the Maurian editions of the
   fathers) was interrupted by the French Revolution, but afterwards
   resumed, and with a second volume (after papers left by the Maurians)
   completed by A. B. Caillau, Par. l837-'40, 2 vols. fol. Reprinted in
   Migne's Patrolog. Graec. (tom. 35-38), Petit-Montrouge, 1857, in 4
   vols. (on the separate editions of his Orationes and Carmina, see
   Brunet, Man. du libraire, tom. ii. 1728 sq.)

   II. Biographical notices in Gregory's Epistles and Poems, in Socrates,
   Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus, and Suidas (s. v. Gregorios). Gregorius
   Presbyter (of uncertain origin, perhaps of Cappadocia in the tenth
   century): Bios tou Gregoriou(Greek and Latin in Migne's ed. of the
   Opera, tom. i. 243-304). G. Hermant: La vie de S. Basile le Grand et
   celle de S. Gregoire de Nazianz. Par. 1679, 2 vols. Acta Sanctorum,
   tom. ii. Maji, p. 373 sqq. Bened. Editores: Vita Greg. ex iis
   potissimum scriptis adornata (in Migne's ed. tom. i. pp. 147-242).
   Tillemont: Mémoires, tom. ix. pp. 305-560, 692-731. Le Clerc:
   Bibliothèque Universelle, tom. xviii. pp. 1-128. W. Cave: Lives of the
   Fathers, vol. iii. pp. 1-90 (ed. Oxf. 1840). Schröckh: Part xiii. pp.
   275-466. Carl Ullmann: Gregorius von Nazianz, der Theologe. Ein Beitrag
   zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte des 4ten Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt,
   1825. (One of the best historical monographs by a theologian of kindred
   spirit.) Comp. also the articles of Hefele in Wetzer und Welte's
   Kirchenlexikon, vol. iv. 736 ff., and Gass in Herzog's Encykl. vol. v.
   349.

   Gregory Nazianzen, or Gregory the Theologian, is the third in the
   Cappadocian triad; inferior to his bosom friend Basil as a church
   ruler, and to his namesake of Nyssa as a speculative thinker, but
   superior to both as an orator. With them he exhibits the flower of
   Greek theology in close union with the Nicene faith, and was one of the
   champions of orthodoxy, though with a mind open to free speculation.
   His life, with its alternations of high station, monastic seclusion,
   love of severe studies, enthusiasm for poetry, nature, and friendship,
   possesses a romantic charm. He was "by inclination and fortune tossed
   between the silence of a contemplative life and the tumult of church
   administration, unsatisfied with either, neither a thinker nor a poet,
   but, according to his youthful desire, an orator, who, though often
   bombastic and dry, labored as powerfully for the victory of orthodoxy
   as for true practical Christianity." [1956]

   Gregory Nazianzen was born about 330, a year before the emperor Julian,
   either at Nazianzum, a market-town in the south-western part of
   Cappadocia, where his father was bishop, or in the neighboring village
   of Arianzus. [1957]

   In the formation of his religious character his mother Nonna, one of
   the noblest Christian women of antiquity, exerted a deep and wholesome
   influence. By her prayers and her holy life she brought about the
   conversion of her husband from the sect of the Hypsistarians, who,
   without positive faith, worshipped simply a supreme being; and she
   consecrated her son, as Hannah consecrated Samuel, even before his
   birth; to the service of God. "She was," as Gregory describes her, "a
   wife according to the mind of Solomon; in all things subject to her
   husband according to the laws of marriage, not ashamed to be his
   teacher and his leader in true religion. She solved the difficult
   problem of uniting a higher culture, especially in knowledge of divine
   things and strict exercise of devotion, with the practical care of her
   household. If she was active in her house, she seemed to know nothing
   of the exercises of religion; if she occupied herself with God and his
   worship, she seemed to be a stranger to every earthly occupation: she
   was whole in everything. Experiences had instilled into her unbounded
   confidence in the effects of believing prayer; therefore she was most
   diligent in supplications, and by prayer overcame even the deepest
   feelings of grief over her own and others' sufferings. She had by this
   means attained such control over her spirit, that in every sorrow she
   encountered, she never uttered a plaintive tone before she had thanked
   God." He especially celebrates also her extraordinary liberality and
   self-denying love for the poor and the sick. But it seems to be not in
   perfect harmony with this, that he relates of her: "Towards heathen
   women she was so intolerant, that she never offered her mouth or hand
   to them in salutation. [1958] She ate no salt with those who came from
   the unhallowed altars of idols. Pagan temples she did not look at, much
   less would she have stepped upon their ground; and she was as far from
   visiting the theatre." Of course her piety moved entirely in the spirit
   of that time, bore the stamp of ascetic legalism rather than of
   evangelical freedom, and adhered rigidly to certain outward forms.
   Significant also is her great reverence for sacred things. "She did not
   venture to turn her back upon the holy table, or to spit upon the floor
   of the church." Her death was worthy of a holy life. At a great age, in
   the church which her husband had built almost entirely with his own
   means, she died, holding fast with one hand to the altar and raising
   the other imploringly to heaven, with the words: "Be gracious to me, O
   Christ, my King!" Amidst universal sorrow, especially among the widows
   and orphans whose comfort and help she had been, she was laid to rest
   by the side of her husband near the graves of the martyrs. Her
   affectionate son says in one of the poems in which he extols her piety
   and her blessed end: "Bewail, O mortals, the mortal race; but when one
   dies, like Nonna, praying, then weep I not."

   Gregory was early instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in the
   rudiments of science. He soon conceived a special predilection for the
   study of oratory, and through the influence of his mother, strengthened
   by a dream, [1959] he determined on the celibate life, that he might
   devote himself without distraction to the kingdom of God. Like the
   other church teachers of this period, he also gave this condition the
   preference, and extolled it in orations and poems, though without
   denying the usefulness and divine appointment of marriage. His father,
   and his friend Gregory of Nyssa were among the few bishops who lived in
   wedlock.

   From his native town he went for his further education to Caesarea in
   Cappadocia, where he probably already made a preliminary acquaintance
   with Basil; then to Caesarea in Palestine, where there were at that
   time celebrated schools of eloquence; thence to Alexandria, where his
   revered Athanasius wore the supreme dignity of the church; and finally
   to Athens, which still maintained its ancient renown as the seat of
   Grecian science and art. Upon the voyage thither he survived a fearful
   storm, which threw him into the greatest mental anguish, especially
   because, though educated a Christian, he, according to a not unusual
   custom of that time, had not yet received holy baptism, which was to
   him the condition of salvation. His deliverance he ascribed partly to
   the intercession of his parents, who had intimation of his peril by
   presentiments and dreams, and he took it as a second consecration to
   the spiritual office.

   In Athens be formed or strengthened the bond of that beautiful
   Christian friendship with Basil, of which we have already spoken in the
   life of Basil. They were, as Gregory says, as it were only one soul
   animating two bodies. He became acquainted also with the prince Julian,
   who was at that time studying there, but felt wholly repelled by him,
   and said of him with prophetic foresight: "What evil is the Roman
   empire here educating for itself!" [1960] He was afterwards a bitter
   antagonist of Julian, and wrote two invective discourses against him
   after his death, which are inspired, however, more by the fire of
   passion than by pure enthusiasm for Christianity, and which were
   intended to expose him to universal ignominy as a horrible monument of
   enmity to Christianity and of the retributive judgment of God. [1961]

   Friends wished him to settle in Athens as a teacher of eloquence, but
   he left there in his thirtieth year, and returned through
   Constantinople, where he took with him his brother Caesarius, a
   distinguished physician, [1962] to his native city and his parents'
   house. At this time his baptism took place. With his whole soul he now
   threw himself into a strict ascetic life. He renounced innocent
   enjoyments, even to music, because they flatter the senses. "His food
   was bread and salt, his drink water, his bed the bare ground, his
   garment of coarse, rough cloth. Labor filled the day; praying, singing,
   and holy contemplation, a great part of the night. His earlier life,
   which was anything but loose, only not so very strict, seemed to him
   reprehensible; his former laughing now cost him many tears. Silence and
   quiet meditation were law and pleasure to him." [1963] Nothing but love
   to his parents restrained him from entire seclusion, and induced him,
   contrary to talent and inclination, to assist his father in the
   management of his household and his property.

   But he soon followed his powerful bent toward the contemplative life of
   solitude, and spent a short time with Basil in a quiet district of
   Pontus in prayer, spiritual contemplations, and manual labors. "Who
   will transport me," he afterwards wrote to his friend concerning this
   visit, [1964] "back to those former days, in which I revelled with thee
   in privations? For voluntary poverty is after all far more honorable
   than enforced enjoyment. Who will give me back those songs and vigils?
   who, those risings to God in prayer, that unearthly, incorporeal life,
   that fellowship and that spiritual harmony of brothers raised by thee
   to a God-like life? who, the ardent searching of the Holy Scriptures,
   and the light which, under the guidance of the Spirit, we found
   therein?" Then he mentions the lesser enjoyments of the beauties of
   surrounding nature.

   On a visit to his parents' house, Gregory against his will, and even
   without his previous knowledge, was ordained presbyter by his father
   before the assembled congregation on a feast day of the year 361. Such
   forced elections and ordinations, though very offensive to our taste,
   were at that time frequent, especially upon the urgent wish of the
   people, whose voice in many instances proved to be indeed the voice of
   God. Basil also, and Augustine, were ordained presbyters, Athanasius
   and Ambrose bishops, against their will. Gregory fled soon after, it is
   true, to his friend in Pontus, but out of regard to his aged parents
   and the pressing call of the church, he returned to Nazianzum towards
   Easter in 362, and delivered his first pulpit discourse, in which he
   justified himself in his conduct, and said: "It has its advantage to
   hold back a little from the call of God, as Moses, and after him
   Jeremiah, did on account of their age; but it has also its advantage to
   come forward readily, when God calls, like Aaron and Isaiah; provided
   both be done with a devout spirit, the one on account of inherent
   weakness, the other in reliance upon the strength of him who calls."
   His enemies accused him of haughty contempt of the priestly office; but
   he gave as the most important reason of his flight, that he did not
   consider himself worthy to preside over a flock, and to undertake the
   care of immortal souls, especially in such stormy times.

   Basil, who, as metropolitan, to strengthen the catholic interest
   against Arianism, set about the establishment of new bishoprics in the
   small towns of Cappadocia, intrusted to his young friend one such
   charge in Sasima, a poor market town at the junction of three highways,
   destitute of water, verdure, and society, frequented only by rude
   wagoners, and at the time an apple of discord between him and his
   opponent, the bishop Anthimus of Tyana. A very strange way of showing
   friendship, unjustifiable even by the supposition that Basil wished to
   exercise the humility and self-denial of Gregory. [1965] No wonder
   that, though a bishopric in itself was of no account to Gregory, this
   act deeply wounded his sense of honor, and produced a temporary
   alienation between him and Basil. [1966] At the combined request of his
   friend and his aged father, he suffered himself indeed to be
   consecrated to the new office; but it is very doubtful whether he ever
   went to Sasima. [1967] At all events we soon afterwards find him in his
   solitude, and then again, in 372, assistant of his father in Nazianzum.
   In a remarkable discourse delivered in the presence of his father in
   372, he represented to the congregation his peculiar fluctuation
   between an innate love of the contemplative life of seclusion and the
   call of the Spirit to public labor.

   "Come to my help," said he to his hearers, [1968] "for I am almost torn
   asunder by my inward longing and by the Spirit. The longing urges me to
   flight, to solitude in the mountains, to quietude of soul and body, to
   withdrawal of spirit from all sensuous things, and to retirement into
   myself, that I may commune undisturbed with God, and be wholly
   penetrated by the rays of His Spirit .... But the other, the Spirit,
   would lead me into the midst of life, to serve the common weal, and by
   furthering others to further myself, to spread light, and to present to
   God a people for His possession, a holy people, a royal priesthood
   (Tit. ii. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 9), and His image again purified in many. For
   as a whole garden is more than a plant, and the whole heaven with all
   its beauties is more glorious than a star, and the whole body more
   excellent than one member, so also before God the whole well-instructed
   church is better than one well-ordered person, and a man must in
   general look not only on his own things, but also on the things of
   others. So Christ did, who, though He might have remained in His own
   dignity and divine glory, not only humbled Himself to the form of a
   servant, but also, despising all shame, endured the death of the cross,
   that by His suffering He might blot out sin, and by His death destroy
   death."

   Thus he stood a faithful helper by the side of his venerable and
   universally beloved father, who reached the age of almost an hundred
   years, and had exercised the priestly office for forty-five; and on the
   death of his father, in 374, he delivered a masterly funeral oration,
   which Basil attended. [1969] "There is," said he in this discourse,
   turning to his still living mother, "only one life, to behold the
   (divine) life; there is only one death--sin; for this is the corruption
   of the soul. But all else, for the sake of which many exert themselves,
   is a dream which decoys us from the true; it is a treacherous phantom
   of the soul. When we think so, O my mother, then we shall not boast of
   life, nor dread death. For whatsoever evil we yet endure, if we press
   out of it to true life, if we, delivered from every change, from every
   vortex, from all satiety, from all vassalage to evil, shall there be
   with eternal, no longer changeable things, as small lights circling
   around the great."

   A short time after he had been invested with the vacant bishopric, he
   retired again, in 375, to his beloved solitude, and this time be went
   to Seleucia in Isauria, to the vicinity of a church dedicated to St.
   Thecla.

   There the painful intelligence reached him of the death of his beloved
   Basil, a.d. 379. On this occasion be wrote to Basil's brother, Gregory
   of Nyssa: "Thus also was it reserved for me still in this unhappy life
   to hear of the death of Basil and the departure of this holy soul,
   which is gone out from us, only to go in to the Lord, after having
   already prepared itself for this through its whole life." He was at
   that time bodily and mentally very much depressed. In a letter to the
   rhetorician Eudoxius he wrote: "You ask, how it fares with me. Very
   badly. I no longer have Basil; I no longer have Caesarius; my spiritual
   brother, and my bodily brother. I can say with David, my father and my
   mother have forsaken me. My body is sickly, age is coming over my head,
   cares become more and more complicated, duties overwhelm me, friends
   are unfaithful, the church is without capable pastors, good declines,
   evil stalks naked. The ship is going in the night, a light nowhere,
   Christ asleep. What is to be done? O, there is to me but one escape
   from this evil case: death. But the hereafter would be terrible to me,
   if I had to judge of it by the present state."

   But Providence had appointed him yet a great work and in exalted
   position in the Eastern capital of the empire. In the year 379 he was
   called to the pastoral charge by the orthodox church in Constantinople,
   which, under the oppressive reign of Arianism, was reduced to a feeble
   handful; and he was exhorted by several worthy bishops to accept the
   call. He made his appearance unexpectedly. With his insignificant form
   bowed by disease, his miserable dress, and his simple, secluded mode of
   life, he at first entirely disappointed the splendor-loving people of
   the capital, and was much mocked and persecuted. [1970] But in spite of
   all he succeeded, by his powerful eloquence and faithful labor, in
   building up the little church in faith and in Christian life, and
   helped the Nicene doctrine again to victory. In memory of this success
   his little domestic chapel was afterwards changed into a magnificent
   church, and named Anastasia, the Church of the Resurrection.

   People of all classes crowded to his discourses, which were mainly
   devoted to the vindication of the Godhead of Christ and to the Trinity,
   and at the same time earnestly inculcated a holy walk befitting the
   true faith. Even the famous Jerome, at that time already fifty years
   old, came from Syria to Constantinople to hear these discourses, and
   took private instruction of Gregory in the interpretation of Scripture.
   He gratefully calls him his preceptor and catechist.

   The victory of the Nicene faith, which Gregory had thus inwardly
   promoted in the imperial city, was outwardly completed by the
   celebrated edict of the new emperor Theodosius, in February, 380. When
   the emperor, on the 24th of December of that year, entered
   Constantinople, he deposed the Arian bishop, Demophilus, with all his
   clergy, and transferred the cathedral church [1971] to Gregory with the
   words: "This temple God by our hand intrusts to thee as a reward for
   thy pains." The people tumultuously demanded him for bishop, but he
   decidedly refused. And in fact he was not yet released from his
   bishopric of Nazianzum or Sasima (though upon the latter he had never
   formally entered); he could be released only by a synod.

   When Theodosius, for the formal settlement of the theological
   controversies, called the renowned ecumenical council in May, 381,
   Gregory was elected by this council itself bishop of Constantinople,
   and, amidst great festivities, was inducted into the office. In virtue
   of this dignity he held for a time the presidency of the council.

   When the Egyptian and Macedonian bishops arrived, they disputed the
   validity of his election, because, according to the fifteenth canon of
   the council of Nice, he could not be transferred from his bishopric of
   Sasima to another; though their real reason was, that the election had
   been made without them, and that Gregory would probably be distasteful
   to them as a bold preacher of righteousness. This deeply wounded him.
   He was soon disgusted, too, with the operations of party passions in
   the council, and resigned with the following remarkable declaration:

   "Whatever this assembly may hereafter determine concerning me, I would
   fain raise your mind beforehand to something far higher: I pray you
   now, be one, and join yourselves in love! Must we always be only
   derided as infallible, and be animated only by one thing, the spirit of
   strife? Give each other the hand fraternally. But I will be a second
   Jonah. I will give myself for the salvation of our ship (the church),
   though I am innocent of the storm. Let the lot fall upon me, and cast
   me into the sea. A hospitable fish of the deep will receive me. This
   shall be the beginning of your harmony. I reluctantly ascended the
   episcopal chair, and gladly I now come down. Even my weak body advises
   me this. One debt only have I to pay: death; this I owe to God. But, O
   my Trinity! for Thy sake only am I sad. Shalt Thou have an able man,
   bold and zealous to vindicate Thee? Farewell, and remember my labors
   and my pains."

   In the celebrated valedictory which be delivered before the assembled
   bishops, he gives account of his administration; depicts the former
   humiliation and the present triumph of the Nicene faith in
   Constantinople, and his own part in this great change, for which he
   begs repose as his only reward; exhorts his hearers to harmony and
   love; and then takes leave of Constantinople and in particular of his
   beloved church, with this address:

   "And now, farewell, my Anastasia, who bearest a so holy name; thou hast
   exalted again our faith, which once was despised; thou, our common
   field of victory, thou new Shiloh, where we first established again the
   ark of the covenant, after it had been carried about for forty years on
   our wandering in the wilderness."

   Though this voluntary resignation of so high a post proceeded in part
   from sensitiveness and irritation, it is still an honorable testimony
   to the character of Gregory in contrast with the many clergy of his
   time who shrank from no intrigues and by-ways to get possession of such
   dignities. He left Constantinople in June, 381, and spent the remaining
   years of his life mostly in solitude on his paternal estate of Arianzus
   in the vicinity of Nazianzum, in religious exercises and literary
   pursuits. Yet he continued to operate through numerous epistles upon
   the affairs of the church, and took active interest in the welfare and
   sufferings of the men around him. The nearer death approached, the more
   he endeavored to prepare himself for it by contemplation and rigid
   ascetic practice, that he "might be, and might more and more become, in
   truth a pure mirror of God and of divine things; might already in hope
   enjoy the treasures of the future world; might walk with the angels;
   might already forsake the earth, while yet walking upon it; and might
   be transported into higher regions by the Spirit." In his poems he
   describes himself, living solitary in the clefts of the rocks among the
   beasts, going about without shoes, content with one rough garment, and
   sleeping upon the ground covered with a sack. He died in 390 or 391;
   the particular circumstances of his death being now unknown. His bones
   were afterwards brought to Constantinople; and they are now shown at
   Rome and Venice.

   Among the works of Gregory stand pre-eminent his five Theological
   Orations in defence of the Nicene doctrine against the Eunomians and
   Macedonians, which he delivered in Constantinople, and which won for
   him the honorary title of the Theologian (in the narrower sense, i.e.,
   vindicator of the deity of the Logos). [1972] His other orations
   (forty-five in all) are devoted to the memory of distinguished martyrs,
   friends, and kindred, to the ecclesiastical festivals, and to public
   events or his own fortunes. Two of them are bitter attacks on Julian
   after his death. [1973] They are not founded on particular texts, and
   have no strictly logical order and connection.

   He is the greatest orator of the Greek church, with the exception
   perhaps of Chrysostom; but his oratory often degenerates into arts of
   persuasion, and is full of labored ornamentation and rhetorical
   extravagances, which are in the spirit of his age, but in violation of
   healthful, natural taste.

   As a poet he holds a subordinate, though respectable place. He wrote
   poetry only in his later life, and wrote it not from native impulse, as
   the bird sings among the branches, but in the strain of moral
   reflection, upon his own life, or upon doctrinal and moral themes. Many
   of his orations are poetical, many of his poems are prosaic. Not one of
   his odes or hymns passed into use in the church. Yet some of his
   smaller pieces, apothegms, epigrams, and epitaphs, are very beautiful,
   and betray noble affections, deep feeling, and a high order of talent
   and cultivation. [1974]

   We have, finally, two hundred and forty-two (or 244) Epistles from
   Gregory, which are important to the history of the time, and in some
   cases very graceful and interesting.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1956] So K. Haseadmirably characterizes him, in his Lehrbuch, p. 138
   (7th ed.). The judgment of Gibbon(Decline and Fall, ch. xxii.) is
   characteristic: "The title of Saint has been added to his name: but the
   tenderness of his heart, and the elegance of his genius, reflect a more
   pleasing lustre on the memory of Gregory Nazianzen." The praise of "the
   tenderness of his heart" suggests to the skeptical historian another
   fling at the ancient church, by adding the note: "I can only be
   understood to mean, that such was his natural temper when it was not
   hardened, or inflamed, by religious zeal. From his retirement, he
   exhorts Nectarius to prosecute the heretics of Constantinople."

   [1957] Respecting the time and place of his birth, views are divided.
   According to Suidas, Gregory was over ninety years old, and therefore,
   since he died in 389 or 390, must have been born about the year 800.
   This statement was accepted by Pagi and other Roman divines, to remove
   the scandal of his canonized father's having begotten children after he
   became bishop; but it is irreconcilable with the fact that Gregory,
   according to his own testimony (Carmen de vita sua, v. 112 and 238, and
   Orat. v. c. 23), studied in Athens at the same time with Julianthe
   Apostate, therefore in 355, and left Athens at the age of thirty years.
   Comp. Tillemont, tom. ix. pp. 693-697; Schröckh, Part xiii. p. 276, and
   the admirable monograph of Ullmann, p. 548 sqq. (of which I have made
   special use in this section).

   [1958] Against the express injunction of love for enemies, Hatt. v. 44
   ff. The command of 2 John v. 10, 11, which might be quoted in
   justification of Nonna, refers not to pagans, but to anti-Christian
   heretics.

   [1959] There appeared to him two veiled virgins, of unearthly beauty,
   who called themselves Purity and Chastity, companions of Jesus Christ,
   and friends of those who renounced all earthly connections for the sake
   of leading a perfectly divine life. After exhorting the youth to join
   himself to them in spirit, they rose again to heaven. Carmen iv. v.
   205-285.

   [1960] Hoion kakon he Rhomaion trephei.

   [1961] These Invectivae, or logoisteliteutikoi, are, according to the
   old order, the 3d and 4th, according to the new the 4th and 5th, of
   Gregory's Orations, tom. i. pp. 78-176, of the Benedictine edition.

   [1962] To this Caesarius, who was afterwards physician in ordinary to
   the emperor in Constantinople, many, following Photius, ascribe the
   still extant collection of theological and philosophical questions,
   Dialogi iv sive Quaestiones Theol. et philos. 145; but without
   sufficient ground. Comp. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. viii. p. 435. He was a
   true Christian, but was not baptized till shortly before his death in
   368. His mother Nonna followed the funeral procession in the white
   raiment of festive joy. He was afterwards, like his brother Gregory,
   his sister Gorgonia, and his mother, received into the number of the
   saints of the Catholic church.

   [1963] Ullmann, l. c. p. 50.

   [1964] Epist. ix. p. 774, of the old order, or Ep. vi. of the new (ed.
   Bened. ii. p. 6).

   [1965] Gibbon (ch. xxvii.) very unjustly attributes this action of
   Basil to hierarchical pride and to an intention to insult Gregory.
   Basil treated his own brother not much better; for Nyssa was likewise
   an insignificant place.

   [1966] Gregory gave to the pangs of injured friendship a touching
   expression in the following lines from the poem on his own Life (De
   vita sua, vss. 476 sqq. tom. ii. p. 699, of the Bened.ed., or tom. iii.
   1062, in Migne's ed.): Toiaut Athenai, kai ponoi koino logon,
   omO'ogets's iak et` enus'oitss ib'os, Nous eis en amphoin, ou duo,
   thuam Hellados, Kai dexiai, kosmon men hos porrho balein, Autous de
   koinon totheo zesai bion, Logous te dounai to mono sopho Logo.
   Dieskedastai panta, errhiptai chamai, Aurai phepousi tas
   palaiaselpidas.
   "Talia Athenae, et communia studia, Ejusdem texti et mensae consors
   vita, Mena una, non duae in ambobus, res mira Graeciae, Dataeque
   dexterae, mundum ut procul rejiceremus, Deoque simul viveremus, Et
   literas soli sapienti Verbo dedicaremus. Dissipata haec sunt omnia, et
   humi projects, Venti auferunt spes nostras antiquas." Gibbon (ch.
   xxvii.) quotes this passage with admiration, though with characteristic
   omission of vss. 479-481, which refer to their harmony in religion; and
   he aptly alludes to a parallel from Shakespeare, who had never read the
   poems of Gregory Nazianzen, but who gave to similar feelings a similar
   expression, in the Midsummer Night's Dream, where Helena utters the
   same pathetic complaint to her friend Hermia: "Is all the counsel that
   we two have shared, The sister's vows," &e.

   [1967] Gibbon says: "He solemnly protests, that he never consummated
   his spiritual marriage with this disgusting bride."

   [1968] Orat. xii. 4; tom. i. 249 sq. (in Migne's ed. tom. i. p. 847).

   [1969] Orat. xviii. Epitaphios eis ton patera, parontos Basileiou (ed.
   Bened. tom. i. pp. 330-362; in Migne's ed. i. 981 sqq.).

   [1970] Once the Arian populace even stormed his church by night,
   desecrated the altar, mixed the holy wine with blood, and Gregory but
   barely escaped the fury of common women and monks, who were armed with
   clubs and stones. The next day he was summoned before the court for the
   tumult, but so happily defended himself, that the occurrence heightened
   the triumph of his just cause. Probably from this circumstance he
   afterwards received the honorary title of confessor. See Ullmann, p.
   176.

   [1971] Not the church of St. Sophia, as Tillemont assumes, but the
   church of the Apostles, as Ullmann, p. 223, supposes; for Gregory never
   names the former, but mentions the latter repeatedly, and that as the
   church in which he himself preached. Constantinebuilt both, but made
   the church of the Apostles the more magnificent, and chose it for his
   own burial place (Euseb. Vita Const. iv. 58-60); St. Sophia afterwards
   became under Justinian the most glorious monument of the later Greek
   architecture, and the cathedral of Constantinople.

   [1972] Hence called also logoi theologikoi, Orationes theologicae. They
   are Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. in the Bened. ed. tom. i. pp. 487-577 (in Migne,
   tom. ii. 9 sqq.), and in the Bibliotheca Patrum Graec. dogmatica of
   Thilo, vol. ii. pp. 366-537.

   [1973] Invectivae, Orat. iv. et v. in the Bened. ed. tom. i. 73-176 (in
   Migne's ed. tom. i. pp. 531-722). His horror of Julianmisled him even
   to eulogize the Arian emperor Constantius, to whom his brother was
   physician.

   [1974] His poems fill together with the Epistles the whole second tome
   of the magnificent Benedictine edition, so delightful to handle, which
   was published at Paris, 1842 (edente et curante D. A. B. Caillau), and
   vols. iii. and iv. of Migne's reprint. They are divided by the Bened.
   editor into: I. Poëmata theologica (dogmatica, moralia); II. historica
   (a. autobiographical, quae spectant ipsum Gregorium, peri heautou, De
   seipso; and b. peri ton heteron, quae spectant alios); III. epitaphia;
   IV. epigrammata; and V. a long tragedy, Christus patiens, with Christ,
   the Holy Virgin, Joseph, Theologus, Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Nuntius,
   and Pilate as actors. This is the first attempt at a Christian drama.
   The order of the poems, as well as the Orations and Epistles, differs
   in the Benedictine from that of the older editions. See the comparative
   table in tom. ii. p. xv. sqq. One of the finest passages in his poems
   is his lamentation over the temporary suspension of his friendship with
   Basil, quoted above, p. 914.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 167. Didymus of Alexandria.

   I. Didymi Alexandrini Opera omnia: accedunt S. Amphilochii et Nectarii
   scripta quae supersunt Graece, accurante et denuo recognoscente J. P.
   Migne. Petit-Montrouge (Paris), 1858. (Tom. xxxix. of the Patrologia
   Graeca.)

   II. Hieronymus: De viris illustr. c. 109, and Prooem. in Hoseam.
   Scattered accounts in Rufinus, Palladius, Socrates, Sozomen, and
   Theodoret. Tillemont: Mémoires, x. 164. Fabricius: Bibl. Gr. tom. ix.
   269 sqq. ed. Harless (also in Migne's ed. of the Opera, pp. 131-140).
   Schröckh: Church History, vii. 74-87. Guericke: De schola Alexandrina.
   Hal. 1824.

   Didymus, the last great teacher of the Alexandrian catechetical school,
   and a faithful follower of Origen, was born probably at Alexandria
   about the year 309. Though he became in his fourth year entirely blind,
   and for this reason has been surnamed Caecus, yet by extraordinary
   industry he gained comprehensive and thorough knowledge in philosophy,
   rhetoric, and mathematics. He learned to write by means of wooden
   tablets in which the characters were engraved; and he became so
   familiar with the Holy Scriptures by listening to the church lessons,
   that he knew them almost all by heart.

   Athanasius nominated him teacher in the theological school, where he
   zealously labored for nearly sixty years. Even men like Jerome,
   Rufinus, Palladius, and Isidore, sat at his feet with admiration. He
   was moreover an enthusiastic advocate of ascetic life, and stood in
   high esteem with the Egyptian anchorites; with St. Anthony in
   particular, who congratulated him, that, though blind to the perishable
   world of sense, he was endowed with the eye of an angel to behold the
   mysteries of God. He died at a great age, in universal favor, in 395.

   Didymus was thoroughly orthodox in the doctrine of the Trinity, and a
   discerning opponent of the Arians, but at the same time a great
   venerator of Origen, and a participant of his peculiar views concerning
   the pre-existence of souls, and probably concerning final restoration.
   For this reason he was long after his death condemned with intolerant
   zeal by several general councils. [1975]

   We have from him a book On the Holy Ghost, translated by Jerome into
   Latin, in which he advocates, with much discrimination, and in simple,
   biblical style, the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father,
   against the Semi-Arians and Pneumatomachi of his time; [1976] and three
   books on the Trinity, in the Greek original. [1977] He wrote also a
   brief treatise against the Manichaeans. Of his numerous exegetical
   works we have a commentary on the Catholic Epistles, [1978] and large
   fragments, in part uncertain, of commentaries on the Psalms, Job,
   Proverbs, and some Pauline Epistles. [1979]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1975] First at the fifth ecumenical council in 553. The sixth council
   in 680 stigmatized him as a defender of the abominable doctrine of
   Origen, who revived the heathen fables of the transmigration of souls;
   and the seventh repeated this in 787

   [1976] Didymus wrote only one book De Spiritu Sancto (see Jerome, De
   viris illustr. c. 135: librum unum de Sp. S. Didymi quem in Latinum
   transtuli). The division into three books is of later date.

   [1977] Discovered and edited by Joh. Aloys. Mingarelli, at Bologna,
   1769, with a Latin translation and learned treatises on the life,
   doctrine, and writings of Didymus. (Dr. Herzog, Encykl. iii. p. 384,
   confounds this edition with a preliminary advertisement by the brother
   Ferdinand Mingarelli: Veterum testimonia de Didymo Alex. coeco, ex
   quibus tres libri de Trinitate nuper detecti eidem asseruntur, Rom.
   1764. The title of the work itself is: Didymus, De Trinitate libri
   tres, nunc primum ex Passioneiano codice Gr. editi, Latine conversi, ac
   notis illustrati a D. Joh. Aloys. Mingarellio, Bononiae 1769, fol.)

   [1978] The Latin version is found in the libraries of the church
   fathers. The original Greek has been edited by Dr. Fr. Lücke from
   Muscovite manuscripts in four academic dissertations: Quaestiones ac
   vindiciae Didymianae, sive Didymi Alex. enarratio in Epistolas
   Catholicas Latina, Graeco exemplari magnam partem e Graecis scholiis
   restituta, Gotting. 1829-'32. Reprinted in Migne's edition of Opera
   Didymi, pp. 1731-1818.

   [1979] In Migne's ed. p. 1109 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 168. Cyril of Jerusalem.

   I. S. Cyrilus, archiepisc. Hierosolymitanus: Opera quae exstant omnia,
   &c., cura et studio Ant. Aug. Touttaei (Touttée), presb. et monachi
   Bened. e congreg. S. Mauri. Paris, 1720. 1 vol. fol. (edited after
   Touttée's death by the Benedictine D. Prud. Maranus. Comp. therewith
   Sal. Deyling: Cyrillus Hieros. a corruptelis Touttaei aliorumque
   purgatus. Lips. 1728). Reprint, Venice, 1763. A new ed. by Migne,
   Petit-Montrouge, 1857 (Patrol. Gr. tom. xxxiii., which contains also
   the writings of Apollinaris of Laodicea, Diodor of Tarsus, and others).
   The Catecheses of Cyril have also been several times edited separately,
   and translated into modern languages. Engl. transl. in the Oxford
   Library of the Fathers, vol. ii. Oxf. 1839.

   II. Epiphanius: Haer. lx. 20; lxxiii. 23, 27, 37. Hieronymus: De viris
   illustr. c. 112. Socrates: H. E. ii. 40, 42, 45; iii. 20. Sozomen: iv.
   5, 17, 20, 22, 25. Theodoret: H. E. ii. 26, 27; iii. 14; v. 8. The
   Dissertationes Cyrillianae de vita et scriptis S. Cyr. &c. in the
   Benedictine edition of the Opera, and in Migne's reprint, pp. 31-822.
   The Acta Sanctorum, and Butler, sub mense Martii 18. Tillemont: tom.
   viii. pp. 428-439, 779-787. Also the accounts in the well-known
   patristic works of Dupin, Ceillier, Cave, Fabricius. Schröckh: Part
   xii. pp. 369-476.

   Cyrilus, presbyter and, after 350, bishop of Jerusalem, was extensively
   involved during his public life in the Arian controversies. His
   metropolitan, Acacius of Caesarea, an Arian, who had elevated him to
   the episcopal chair, fell out with him over the Nicene faith and on a
   question of jurisdiction, and deposed him at a council in 357. His
   deposition was confirmed by an Arian council at Constantinople in 360.

   After the death of the emperor Constantius he was restored to his
   bishopric in 361, and in 363 his embittered adversary, Acacius,
   converted to the orthodox faith. When Julian encouraged the Jews to
   rebuild the temple, Cyril is said to have predicted the miscarriage of
   the undertaking from the prophecies of Daniel and of Christ, and he was
   justified by the result. Under the Arian emperor Valens he was again
   deposed and banished, with all the other orthodox bishops, till he
   finally, under Theodosius, was permitted to return to Jerusalem in 379,
   to devote himself undisturbed to the supervision and restoration of his
   sadly distracted church until his death.

   He attended the ecumenical council in Constantinople in 381, which
   confirmed him in his office, and gave him the great praise of having
   suffered much from the Arians for the faith. He died in 386, with his
   title to office and his orthodoxy universally acknowledged, clear of
   all the suspicions which many had gathered from his friendship with
   Semi-Arian bishops during his first exile. [1980]

   From Cyril we have an important theological work, complete, in the
   Greek original: his twenty-three Catecheses. [1981] The work consists
   of connected religious lectures or homilies, which he delivered while
   presbyter about the year 347, in preparing a class of catechumens for
   baptism. It follows that form of the Apostles' Creed or the Rule of
   Faith which was then in use in the churches of Palestine and which
   agrees in all essential points with the Roman; it supports the various
   articles with passages of Scripture, and defends them against the
   heretical perversions of his time. The last five, called the Mystagogic
   Catecheses, [1982] are addressed to newly baptized persons, and are of
   importance in the doctrine of the sacraments and the history of
   liturgy. In these he explains the ceremonies then customary at baptism:
   Exorcism, the putting off of garments, anointing, the short confession,
   triple immersion, confirmation by the anointing oil; also the nature
   and ritual of the holy Supper, in which he sees a mystical vital union
   of believers with Christ, and concerning which he uses terms verging at
   least upon the doctrine of transubstantiation. In connection with this
   he gives us a full account of the earliest eucharistic liturgy, which
   coincides in all essential points with such other liturgical remains of
   the Eastern church, as the Apostolic Constitutions and the Liturgy of
   St. James.

   The Catecheses of Cyril are the first example of a popular compend of
   religion; for the catechetical work of Gregory of Nyssa (logos
   katechetikos ho megas) is designed not so much for catechumens, as for
   catechists and those intending to become teachers.

   Besides several homilies and tracts of very doubtful genuineness, a
   homily on the healing of the cripple at Bethesda [1983] and a
   remarkable letter to the emperor Constantius of the year 351, are also
   ascribed to Cyril. [1984] In the letter he relates to the emperor the
   miraculous appearance of a luminous cross extending from Golgotha to a
   point over the mount of Olives (mentioned also by Socrates, Sozomen,
   and others), and calls upon him to praise the "consubstantial Trinity."
   [1985]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1980] His sentiments on the holy Trinity are discussed at length in
   the third preliminary dissertation of the Bened. editor (in Migne's ed.
   p. 167 sqq.).

   [1981] Katecheseis photizomenon(or baptizomenon), catecheses
   illuminandorum. They are preceded by a procatechesis.

   [1982] Katecheseis mustagogikai. The name is connected with the
   mysterious practices of the disciplina arcani of the early church.
   Comp. the conclusion of the first Mystagogic Catechesis, c. 11 (Migne,
   p. 1075). The mystagogic lectures are also separately numbered. The
   first is a general exhortation to the baptized on 1 Pet. v. 8; the
   second treats De baptismo; the third, De chrismate; the fourth, De
   corpore et sanguine Christi; the fifth, De sacra liturgia et
   communione.

   [1983] Homilia in paralyticum, John v. 2-16 (in Migne's ed. pp.
   1131-1158).

   [1984] Ep. ad Constantium imper. De viso Hierosolymus lucidae crucis
   signo, pp. 1154-1178.

   [1985] Ten hagian kai homoousion Triada, ton alethinon Theon hemon, oHu
   prepei pasa doxa eis tous ; aionos ton aionon.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 169. Epiphanius.

   I. S. Epiphanius: Opera omnia, Gr. et Lat., Dionysius Petavius ex
   veteribus libris recensuit, Latine vertit et animadversionibus
   illustravit. Paris, 1622, 2 vols. fol. The same edition reprinted with
   additions at Cologne (or rather at Leipsic), 1682, and by J. P. Migne
   Petit-Montrouge, 1858, in 3 vols. (tom. xli.-xliii. of Migne's
   Patrologia Graeca). The Panarionor Panaria of Epiphanius, together with
   his Anacephalaeosis, with the Latin version of both by Petavius, has
   also been separately edited by Fr. Oehler, as tom. ii. and iii. of his
   Corpus haereseologicum, Berol. 1859-'61. (Part second of tom. iii.
   contains the Animadversiones of Petavius, and A. Jahn's Symbolae ad
   emendanda et illustranda S. Epiphanii Panaria.)

   II. Hieronymus: De viris illustr. c. 114, and in several of his
   Epistles relating to the Origenistic controversies, Epp. 66 sqq. ed.
   Vallarsi. Socrates: Hist. Eccl. l. vi. c. 10-14. Sozomen: H. E. viii.
   11-15. Old biographies, full of fables, see in Migne's edition, tom.
   i., and in Petav. ii. 318 sqq. The Vita Epiph. in the Acta Sanctorum
   for May, tom. iii. die 12, pp. 36-49 (also reprinted in Migne's ed.
   tom. i.). Tillemont: Mémoires, tom. x. pp. 484-521, and the notes, pp.
   802-809. Fr. Arm. Gervaise: L'histoire et la vie De saint Epiphane.
   Par. 1738. Fabricius: Biblioth. Graeca ed. Harless, tom. viii. p. 255
   sqq. (also reprinted in Migne's ed. of Epiph. i. 1 sqq.). W. Cave:
   Lives of the Fathers, iii. 207-236 (new Oxf. ed.). Schröckh: Th. x. 3
   ff. R. Adelb. Lipsius: Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanies. Wien, 1865. (A
   critical analysis of the older history of heresies, in Epiph. haer.
   13-57, with special reference to the Gnostic systems.)

   Epiphanius, [1986] who achieved his great fame mainly by his learned
   and intolerant zeal for orthodoxy, was born near Eleutheropolis in
   Palestine, between 310 and 320, and died at sea, at a very advanced
   age, on his way back from Constantinople to Cyprus, in 403. According
   to an uncertain, though not improbable tradition, he was the son of
   poor Jewish parents, and was educated by a rich Jewish lawyer, until in
   his sixteenth year he embraced the Christian religion, [1987] --the
   first example, after St. Paul, of a learned Jewish convert and the only
   example among the ancient fathers; for all the other fathers were
   either born of Christian parents, or converted from heathenism.

   He spent several years in severe ascetic exercises among the hermits of
   Egypt, and then became abbot of a convent near Eleutheropolis. In
   connection with his teacher and friend Hilarion he labored zealously
   for the spread of monasticism in Palestine. [1988]

   In the year 367 he was unanimously elected by the people and the monks
   bishop of Salamis (Constantia), the capital of the island of Cyprus.
   Here he wrote his works against the heretics, and took active part in
   the doctrinal controversies of his age. He made it his principal
   business to destroy the influence of the arch-heretic Origen, for whom
   he had contracted a thorough hatred from the anchorites of Egypt. On
   this mission he travelled in his old age to Palestine and
   Constantinople, and died in the same year in which Chrysostom was
   deposed and banished, an innocent sacrifice on the opposite side in the
   violent Origenistic controversies. [1989]

   Epiphanius was revered even by his cotemporaries as a saint and as a
   patriarch of orthodoxy. Once as he passed through the streets of
   Jerusalem in company with bishop John, mothers brought their children
   to him that he might bless them, and the people crowded around him to
   kiss his feet and to touch the hem of his garment. After his death his
   name was surrounded by a halo of miraculous legends. He was a man of
   earnest, monastic piety, and of sincere but illiberal zeal for
   orthodoxy. His good nature easily allowed him to be used as an
   instrument for the passions of others, and his zeal was not according
   to knowledge. He is the patriarch of heresy-hunters. He identified
   Christianity with monastic piety and ecclesiastical orthodoxy and
   considered it the great mission of his life to pursue the
   thousand-headed hydra of heresy into all its hiding places.
   Occasionally, however, his fiery zeal consumed what was subsequently
   considered an essential part of piety and orthodoxy. Sharing the
   primitive Christian abhorrence of images, he destroyed a picture of
   Christ or some saint in a village church in Palestine; and at times he
   violated ecclesiastical order.

   The learning of Epiphanius was extensive, but ill digested. He
   understood five languages: Hebrew, Syriac, Egyptian, Greek, and a
   little Latin. Jerome, who himself knew but three languages, though he
   knew these far better than Epiphanius, called him the Five-tongued,
   [1990] and Rufinus reproachfully says of him that he considered it his
   sacred duty as a wandering preacher to slander the great Origen in all
   languages and nations. [1991] He was lacking in knowledge of the world
   and of men, in sound judgment, and in critical discernment. He was
   possessed of a boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing
   innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings. His style is
   entirely destitute of beauty or elegance.

   Still his works are of considerable value as a storehouse of the
   history of ancient heresies and of patristic polemics. They are the
   following:

   1. The Anchor, [1992] a defence of Christian doctrine, especially of
   the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection; in
   one hundred and twenty-one chapters. He composed this treatise a.d.
   373, at the entreaty of clergymen and monks, as a stay for those who
   are tossed about upon the sea by heretics and devils. In it he gives
   two creeds, a shorter and a longer, which show that the addition made
   by the second ecumenical council to the Nicene symbol, in respect to
   the doctrine of the Holy Ghost and of the church, had already been
   several years in use in the church. [1993] For the shorter symbol,
   which, according to Epiphanius, had to be said at baptism by every
   orthodox catechumen in the East, from the council of Nicaea to the
   tenth year of Valentinian and Valens (a.d. 373), is precisely the same
   as the Constantinopolitan; and the longer is even more specific against
   Apollinarianism and Macedonianism, in the article concerning the Holy
   Ghost. Both contain the anathemas of the Nicene Creed; the longer
   giving them in an extended form.

   2. The Panarium, or Medicine-chest, [1994] which contains antidotes for
   the poison of all heresies. This is his chief work, composed between
   the years 374 and 377, in answer to solicitations from many quarters.
   And it is the chief hereseological work of the ancient church. It is
   more extensive than any of the similar works of Justin Martyr,
   Irenaeus, and Hippolytus before it, and of Philastrius (or Philastrus),
   Augustine, Theodoret, pseudo-Tertullian, pseudo-Jerome, and the author
   of Praedestinatus, after it. [1995] Epiphanius brought together, with
   the diligence of an unwearied compiler, but without logical or
   chronological arrangement, everything he could learn from written or
   oral sources concerning heretics from the beginning of the world down
   to his time. But his main concern is the antidote to heresy, the
   doctrinal refutations, in which he believed himself to be doing God and
   the church great service, and which, with all their narrowness and
   passion, contain many good thoughts and solid arguments. He improperly
   extends the conception of heresy over the field of all religion;
   whereas heresy is simply a perversion or caricature of Christian truth,
   and lives only upon the Christian religion. He describes and refutes no
   less than eighty heresies, [1996] twenty of them preceding the time of
   Christ. [1997] The pre-Christian heresies are: Barbarism, from Adam to
   the flood; Scythism; Hellenism (idolatry proper, with various schools
   of philosophy); Samaritanism (including four different sects); and
   Judaism (subdivided into seven parties: Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes,
   Hemerobaptists, Osseans, Nazarenes, and Herodians). [1998] Among the
   Christian heresies, of which Simon Magus, according to ancient
   tradition, figures as patriarch, the different schools of Gnosticism
   (which may be easily reduced to about a dozen) occupy the principal
   space. With the sixty-fourth heresy Epiphanius begins the war upon the
   Origenists, Arians, Photinians, Marcellians, Semi-Arians,
   Pneumatomachians, Antidikomarianites, and other heretics of his age. In
   the earlier heresies he made large use, without proper acknowledgment,
   of the well-known works of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, and
   other written sources and oral traditions. In the latter sections he
   could draw more on his own observation and experience.

   3. The Anacephalaeosis is simply an abridgment of the Panarion, with a
   somewhat different order. [1999]

   This is the proper place to add a few words upon similar works of the
   post-Nicene age.

   About the same time, or shortly after Epiphanius (380), Philastrius or
   Philastrus, bishop of Brixia (Brescia), wrote his Liber de haeresibus
   (in 156 chapters). [2000] He was still more liberal with the name of
   heresy, extending it to one hundred and fifty-six systems, twenty-eight
   before Christ, and a hundred and twenty-eight after. He includes
   peculiar opinions on all sorts of subjects: Haeresis de stellis coelo
   affixis, haeresis de peccato Cain, haeresis de Psalterii inequalitate,
   haeresis de animalibus quatuor in prophetis, haeresis de Septuaginta
   interpretibus, haeresis de Melchisedech sacerdote, haeresis de
   uxoribus, et concubinis Salomonis!

   He was followed by St. Augustine, who in the last years of his life
   wrote a brief compend on eighty-eight heresies, commencing with the
   Simonians and ending with the Pelagians. [2001]

   The unknown author of the book called Praedestinatus added two more
   heretical parties, the Nestorians and the Predestinarians, to
   Augustine's list; but the Predestinarians are probably a mere invention
   of the writer for the purpose of caricaturing and exposing the heresy
   of an absolute predestination to good and to evil. [2002]

   4. In addition to those anti-heretical works, we have from Epiphanius a
   biblical archeological treatise on the Measures and Weights of the
   Scriptures, [2003] and another on the Twelve Gems on the breastplate of
   Aaron, with an allegorical interpretation of their names. [2004]

   A Commentary of Epiphanius on the Song of Songs was published in a
   Latin translation by Foggini in 1750 at Rome. Other works ascribed to
   him are lost, or of doubtful origin.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1986] There are several prominent ecclesiastical writers of that name.
   Compare a list of them in Fabricius, l. c.

   [1987] See the biography of his pupil John, ch. 2, in Migne's ed. i. 25
   sqq. Cave accepts this story, and it receives some support from the
   Palestine origin of Epiphanius, and from his knowledge of the Hebrew
   language, which was then so rare that Jeromewas the only father besides
   Epiphanius who possessed it.

   [1988] He composed a eulogy on Hilarion, which, with some others of his
   works, is lost

   [1989] Comp. above, §§ 133 and 134.

   [1990] Pentaglottos.

   [1991] Hieron. Apol. adv. Rufinum, l. iii. c. 6 (Opera, tom. ii. 537,
   ed. Vall.) and l. ii. 21 and 22 (tom. ii. 515). Jeromesays that "papa"
   Epiphanius had read the six thousand [?] books of Origen, and in his
   apology against Rufinus and in his letters he speaks of him with great
   respect as a confederate in the war upon Origen. He acknowledges,
   however, that his statements need an accurate and careful verification.
   In his Liber de viris illustribus, cap. 114, he disposes of him very
   summarily with two sentences: "Epiphanius, Cypri Salaminae episcopus,
   scripsit adversus omnes haereses libros, et multa alia, quae ab
   eruditus propter res, a simplicioribus propter verba lectitantur.
   Superest usque hodie, et in extrema jam senectute varia cudit opera."

   [1992] Ankurotos, Ancoratus, or Ancora fidei catholicae in tom, ii of
   Petavius; tom. iii. 11-236 of Migne.

   [1993] Anc. n. 119 and 120 (tom. iii. 23 sqq. ed. Migne).

   [1994] Panarion, Panarium (Panaria), sive Arcula, or Adversus lxxx.
   haereses (Petavius, tom. i. f. 1-1108; Migne, tom. i. 173-1200, and
   tom. ii. 10-832). Epiphanius himself names it panarion, eit oun
   kibotion iatrikon kai theriodektikon, Panarium, sive Arculam Medicam ad
   eorum qui a serpentibus icti sunt remedium (Epist. ad Acacium et
   Paulum, in Oehler's ed. i. p. 7).

   [1995] Compare the convenient collection of the Latin writers De
   haeresibus, viz.: Philastrius, Augustine, the author of Praedestinatus
   (the first book), pseudo-Tertullian, pseudo-Jerome, Isdortis
   Hispalensis, and Gennadius (De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus), in the first
   volume of Franz Oehler's Corpus haereseologicum, Berolini, 1856. This
   collection is intended to embrace eight volumes. Tom. ii. and iii.
   contain the anti-heretical works of Epiphanius; the remaining volumes
   are intended for Theodoret, pseudo-Origen, John of Damascus, Leontius,
   Timotheus, Irenaeus, and Nicetae Choniatae Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei.

   [1996] Perhaps with a mystic reference to the eighty concubines in the
   Song of Songs, vi. 8: "Sexaginta sunt reginae et octoginta concubinae,
   et adolescentularum non est numerus. Una est columba mea, perfecta
   mea." (Vulgate.)

   [1997] Pseudo-Tertullian(in Libellus adversus omnes haereses),
   Philastrus, and pseudo-Hieronymus (Indiculus de haeresibus) likewise
   include the Jewish sects among the heresies; while Irenaeus, Augustine,
   Theodoret, and the unknown author of the Semi-Pelagian work
   Praedestinatus more correctly begin with the Christian sects. For
   further particulars, see the comparative tables of Lipsius, l.c. p. 4
   ff.

   [1998] Epiphanius in his shorter work, the Anacephalaeosis, deviates
   somewhat from the order in the Panarion. His twenty heresies before
   Christ are as follows: Order in the Panarion: 1. Barbarismus, 2.
   Scythismus, 3. Hellenismus, 4. Judaismus, Hellenismi 5. Stoici, 6.
   Platonici, 7. Pythagorei, 8. Epicurei, Samaritismi 9. Samaritae, 10.
   Esseni, 11. Sebuaei, 12. Gortheni, 13. Dosithei, Judaismi 14. Saducaei,
   15. Scribae, 16. Pharisaei, 17. Hemerobaptistae 18. Nazaraei, 19.
   Osseni or Ossaei, 20. Herodiani
   Order in the Anacephalaeosis: 1. Barbarismus, 2. Scythismus, 3.
   Hellenismus, 4. Judaismus. 5. Samaritismus, Hellenismi 6. Pythagorei,
   7. Platonici, 8. Stoici, 9. Epicurei, Sararitismi 10. Gortheni, 11.
   Sebuaei, 12. Esseni, 13. Dosithei, Judaismi 14. Scribae, 15. Pharisaei,
   16. Sadducaei, 17. Hemerobaptistae, 18. Ossaei, 19. Nazaraei, 20.
   Herodiani

   [1999] Anakephalaiosis, or Epitome Panarii (tom. ii. 126, ed. Patav.;
   tom. ii. 834-886, ed. Migne).

   [2000] Edited by J. A. Fabricius, Hamburg, 1728; by Gallandi,
   Bibliotheca, tom. vii. pp. 475-521; and by Oehler in tom. i. of his
   Corpus haereseolog. pp. 5-185. The close affinity of Philastrus with
   Epiphanius is usually accounted for on the ground of the dependence of
   the former on the latter. This seems to have been the opinion of
   Augustine, Epistola 222 ad Quodvultdeum. But Lipsius (l.c. p. 29 ff.)
   derives both from a common older source, viz., the work of Hippolytus
   against thirty-two heresies and explains the offence of Epiphanius (who
   mentions Hippolytus only once) by the unscrupulousuess of the
   authorship of the age, which had no hesitation in decking itself with
   borrowed plumes.

   [2001] Liber de haeresibus, addressed to Quodvultdeus, a deacon who had
   requested him to write such a work. Augustine, in his letter of reply
   to Quodvultdeus (Ep. 222 in the Bened. edition) alludes to the work of
   Philastrus, whom he had seen with Ambrosein Milan, and to that of
   Epiphanius, and calls the latter "longe Philastrio doctiorem." The work
   of Augustineis also embodied in Oehler's Corpus haereseol. tom. i. pp.
   189-225. The following is a complete list of the heresies of
   Augustineas given by him at the close of the preface: 1. Simoniani; 2.
   Menandriani; 3. Saturniniani; 4. Basilidiani; 5. Nicolaitae; 6.
   Gnostici; 7. Carpocratiani; 8. Cerinthiani, vel Merinthiani; 9.
   Nazaraei; 10. Hebio-naei; 11. Valentiniani; 12. Secundiani; 13.
   Ptolemaei; 14. Marcitae; 15. Colorbasii; 16. Heracleonitae; 17.
   Ophitae; 18. Caiani; 19. Sethiani; 20. Archontici; 21. Cerdoniani; 22.
   Marcionitae; 23. Apellitae; 24. Se-veriani; 25. Tatiani, vel
   Encratitae; 26. Cataphryges; 27. Pepuziani, alias Quintilliani; 28.
   Artotyritae; 29. Tessarescaedecatitae; 30. Alegi; 31. Adamiani; 32.
   Elcesaei et Sampsaei; 33. Theodotiani; 34. Mel-chisedechiani; 35.
   Bardesanistae; 36. Noëtiani; 37. Valesii; 38. Ca-thari, sive Novatiani;
   39. Angelici; 40. Apostolici; 41. Sabelliani; 42. Ori-geniani; 43. Alii
   Origeniani; 44. Pauliani; 45. Photiniani; 46. Manichaei; 47.
   Hieracitae; 48. Meletiani; 49. Ariani; 50. Vadiani, sive
   Anthropo-morphitae; 51. Semiariani; 52. Macedoniani; 53. Aëriani; 54.
   Aëtiani, qui et Eunomiani; 55. Apollinaristae; 56. Antidicomarianitae;
   57. Mas-saliani, sive Euchitae; 58. Metangismonitae; 59. Seleuciani,
   vel Her-miani; 60. Proclianitae; 61. Patriciani; 62. Ascitae; 63.
   Passaloryn-chitae; 64. Aquarii; 65. Coluthiani; 66. Floriniani; 67. De
   mundi statu dissentientes; 68. Nudis pedibus ambulantes; 69.
   Donatistae, sive Do-natiani; 70. Priscillianistae; 71. Cum hominibus
   non manducantes; 72. Rhetoriani; 73. Christi divinitatem passibilem
   dicentes; 74. Triformem deum putantes; 75. Aquam Deo coaeternam
   dicentes; 76. Imaginem Dei non esse animam dicentes; 77. Innumerabiles
   mundos opinantes; 78. Animas converti in daemones et in quaecunque
   animalia existi-mantes; 79. Liberationem omnium apud inferos factam
   Christi descen-sione credentes; 80. Christi de Patre nativitati initium
   temporis dantes; 81. Luciferiani; 82. Iovinianistae; 83. Arabici; 84.
   Helvidiani; 85. Pater-niani, sive Venustiani; 86. Tertullianistae; 87.
   Abeloitae; 88. Pelagiani, qui et Caelestiani.

   [2002] Corpus haereseol. i. 229-268. Comp. above, § 159.

   [2003] Peri metron kai stathmon, De ponderibus et mensuris, written in
   392. (Tom. ii. 158, ed. Petav.; tom. iii. 237, ed. Migne.)

   [2004] Peri ton dodeka lithon, De xii. gemmis in veste Aaronis. (Tom.
   ii. 233, ed. Pet; iii. 293, ed. Migne.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 170. John Chrysostom.

   I. S. Joannis Chrysostomi. archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera
   omnia quae exstant vel quae ejus nomine circumferuntur, ad MSS. codices
   Gallic. etc. castigata, etc. (Gr. et Lat.). Opera et studio D. Bernardi
   de Montfaucon, monachi ordinis S. Benedicti e congregatione S. Mauri,
   opem ferentibus aliis ex eodem sodalitio monachis. Paris. 1718-'38, in
   13 vols. fol. The same edition reprinted at Venice, 1734-'41, in 13
   vols. fol. (after which I quote in this section); also at Paris by
   Sinner (Gaume), 1834-'39, in 13 vols. (an elegant edition, with some
   additions), and by J. P. Migne, Petit-Montrouge, 1859-'60, in 13 vols.
   Besides we have a number of separate editions of the Homilies, and of
   the work on the Priesthood, both in Greek, and in translations. A
   selection of his writings in Greek and Latin was edited by F. G.
   Lomler, Rudolphopoli, 1840, 1 volume. German translations of the
   Homilies (in part) by J. A. Cramer (Leipzig, 1748-'51), Feder
   (Augsburg, 1786), Ph. Mayer (Nürnberg, 1830), W. Arnoldi (Trier, 1831),
   Jos. Lutz (Tübingen, 1853); English translations of the Homilies on the
   New Testament in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, 1842-'53.

   II. Palladius (a friend of Chrysostom and bishop of Helenopolis in
   Bithynia, author of the Historia Lausiaca; according to others a
   different person): Dialogus historicus de vita et conversatione beati
   Joannis Chrysostomi cum Theodoro ecclesiae Romanae diacono (in the
   Bened. ed. of the Opera, tom. xiii. pp. 1-89). Hieronymus: De viris
   illustribus, c. 129 (a very brief notice, mentioning only the work de
   sacerdotio). Socrates: H. E. vi. 3-21. Sozomen: H. E. viii. 2-23.
   Theodoret: H. E. v. 27-36. B. de Montfaucon: Vita Joannis Chrys. in his
   edition of the Opera, tom. xiii. 91-178. Testimonia Veterum de S.
   Joann. Chrys. scriptis, ibid. tom. xiii. 256-292. Tillemont: Mémoires,
   vol. xi. pp. 1-405. F. Stilting: Acta Sanctorum, Sept. 14 (the day of
   his death), tom. iv. pp. 401-709. A. Butler: Lives of Saints, sub Jan.
   27. W. Cave: Lives of the Fathers, vol. iii. p. 237 ff. J. A.
   Fabricius: Biblioth. Gr. tom. viii. 454 sqq. Schröckh: Vol. x. p. 309
   ff. A. Neander: Der heilige Chrysostomus (first 1821), 3d edition,
   Berlin, 1848, 2 vols. Abbé Rochet: Histoire de S. Jean Chrysostome.
   Par. 1866, 2 vols. Comp. also A. F. Villemain's Tableau de l'éloquence
   chrétienne au IVe siècle. Paris, 1854.

   John, to whom an admiring posterity since the seventh century has given
   the name Chrysostomus, the Golden-mouthed, is the greatest expositor
   and preacher of the Greek church, and still enjoys the highest honor in
   the whole Christian world. No one of the Oriental fathers has left a
   more spotless reputation; no one is so much read and so often quoted by
   modern commentators.

   He was born at Antioch, a.d. 347. [2005] His father was a distinguished
   military officer. His mother Anthusa, who from her twentieth year was a
   widow, shines with Nonna and Monica among the Christian women of
   antiquity. She was admired even by the heathen, and the famous
   rhetorician Libanius, on hearing of her consistency and devotion, felt
   constrained to exclaim: "Ah! what wonderful women there are among the
   Christians." [2006] She gave her son an admirable education, and early
   planted in his soul the germs of piety, which afterwards bore the
   richest fruits for himself and for the church. By her admonitions and
   the teachings of the Bible he was secured against the seductions of
   heathenism.

   He received his literary training from Libanius, who accounted him his
   best scholar, and who, when asked shortly before his death (395) whom
   he wished for his successor, replied: "John, if only the Christians had
   not carried him away."

   After the completion of his studies he became a rhetorician. He soon
   resolved, however, to devote himself to divine things, and after being
   instructed for three years by bishop Meletius in Antioch, he received
   baptism.

   His first inclination after his conversion was to adopt the monastic
   life, agreeably to the ascetic tendencies of the times; and it was only
   by the entreaties of his mother, who adjured him with tears not to
   forsake her, that he was for a while restrained. Meletius made him
   reader, and so introduced him to a clerical career. He avoided an
   election to the bishopric (370) by putting forward his friend Basil,
   whom he accounted worthier, but who bitterly complained of the evasion.
   This was the occasion of his celebrated treatise On the Priesthood, in
   which, in the form of a dialogue with Basil, he vindicates his not
   strictly truthful conduct, and delineates the responsible duties of the
   spiritual office. [2007]

   After the death of his mother he fled from the seductions and tumults
   of city life to the monastic solitude of the mountains near Antioch,
   and there spent six happy years in theological study and sacred
   meditation and prayer, under the guidance of the learned abbot Diodorus
   (afterwards bishop of Tarsus, 394), and in communion with such
   like-minded young men as Theodore of Mopsuestia, the celebrated father
   of Antiochian (Nestorian) theology ( 429). Monasticism was to him a
   most profitable school of experience and self-government; because he
   embraced this mode of life from the purest motives, and brought into it
   intellect and cultivation enough to make the seclusion available for
   moral and spiritual growth.

   In this period he composed his earliest writings in praise of
   monasticism and celibacy, and his two long letters to the fallen
   Theodore (subsequently bishop of Mopsuestia), who had regretted his
   monastic vow and resolved to marry. [2008] Chrysostom regarded this
   small affair from the ascetic stand-point of his age as almost equal to
   an apostasy from Christianity, and plied all his oratorical arts of sad
   sympathy, tender entreaty, bitter reproach, and terrible warning, to
   reclaim his friend to what he thought the surest and safest way to
   heaven. To sin, he says, is human, but to persist in sin is devilish;
   to fall is not ruinous to the soul, but to remain on the ground is. The
   appeal had its desired effect, and cannot fail to make a salutary
   impression upon every reader, provided we substitute some really great
   offence for the change of a mode of life which can only be regarded as
   a temporary and abnormal form of Christian practice.

   By excessive self-mortifications John undermined his health, and
   returned about 380 to Antioch. There he was immediately ordained deacon
   by Meletius in 386, and by Flavian was made presbyter. By his eloquence
   and his pure and earnest character he soon acquired great reputation
   and the love of the whole church.

   During the sixteen or seventeen years of his labors in Antioch he wrote
   the greater part of his Homilies and Commentaries, his work on the
   Priesthood, a consolatory Epistle to the despondent Stagirius, and an
   admonition to a young widow on the glory of widowhood and the duty of
   continuing in it. He disapproved second marriage, not as sinful or
   illegal, but as inconsistent with an ideal conception of marriage and a
   high order of piety.

   After the death of Nectarius (successor of Gregory Nazianzen), towards
   the end of the year 397, Chrysostom was chosen, entirely without his
   own agency, patriarch of Constantinople. At this post he labored
   several years with happy effect. But his unsparing sermons aroused the
   anger of the empress Eudoxia, and his fame excited the envy of the
   ambitious patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria. An act of Christian love
   towards the persecuted Origenistic monks of Egypt involved him in the
   Origenistic controversy, and at last the united influence of Theophilus
   and Eudoxia overthrew him. Even the sympathy of the people and of
   Innocent I., the bishop of Rome, was unavailing in his behalf. He died
   in banishment on the fourteenth of September, a.d. 407, thanking God
   for all. [2009] The Greeks celebrate his memorial day on the thirteenth
   of November, the Latins on the twenty-seventh of January, the day on
   which his remains in 438 were solemnly deposited in the Church of the
   Apostles in Constantinople with those of the emperors and patriarchs.

   Persecution and undeserved sufferings tested the character of
   Chrysostom, and have heightened his fame. The Greek church honors him
   as the greatest teacher of the church, approached only by Athanasius
   and the three Cappadocians. His labors fall within the comparatively
   quiet period between the Trinitarian and the Christological
   controversies. He was not therefore involved in any doctrinal
   controversy except the Origenistic; and in that he had a very innocent
   part, as his unspeculative turn of mind kept him from all share in the
   Origenistic errors. Had he lived a few decades later he would perhaps
   have fallen under suspicion of Nestorianism; for he belonged to the
   same Antiochian school with his teacher Diodorus of Tarsus, his
   fellow-student Theodore of Mopsuestia, and his successor Nestorius.
   From this school, whose doctrinal development was not then complete, he
   derived a taste for the simple, sober, grammatico-historical
   interpretation, in opposition to the arbitrary allegorizing of the
   Alexandrians, while he remained entirely free from the rationalizing
   tendency which that school soon afterwards discovered. He is thus the
   soundest and worthiest representative of the Antiochian theology. In
   anthropology he is a decided synergist; and his pupil Cassian, the
   founder of Semi-Pelagianism, gives him for an authority. [2010] But his
   synergism is that of the whole Greek church; it had no direct conflict
   with Augustinianism, for Chrysostom died several years before the
   opening of the Pelagian controversy. He opposed the Arians and
   Novatians, and faithfully and constantly adhered to the church
   doctrine, so far as it was developed; but he avoided narrow dogmatism
   and angry controversy, and laid greater stress on practical piety than
   on unfruitful orthodoxy. [2011]

   Valuable as the contributions of Chrysostom to didactic theology may
   be, his chief importance and merit lie not in this department, but in
   homiletical exegesis, pulpit eloquence, and pastoral care. Here he is
   unsurpassed among the ancient fathers, whether Greek or Latin. By
   talent and culture he was peculiarly fitted to labor in a great
   metropolis. At that time a bishop, as he himself says, enjoyed greater
   honor at court, in the society of ladies, in the houses of the nobles,
   than the first dignitaries of the empire. [2012] Hence the great
   danger, of hierarchical pride and worldly conformity, to which so many
   of the prelates succumbed. This danger Chrysostom happily avoided. He
   continued his plain monastic mode of life in the midst of the splendor
   of the imperial residence, and applied all his superfluous income to
   the support of the sick and the stranger. Poor for himself, he was rich
   for the poor. He preached an earnest Christianity fruitful in good
   works, he insisted on strict discipline, and boldly attacked the vices
   of the age and the hollow, worldly, hypocritical religion of the court.
   He, no doubt, transcended at times the bounds of moderation and
   prudence, as when he denounced the empress Eudoxia as a new Herodias
   thirsting after the blood of John; but he erred "on virtue's side," and
   his example of fearless devotion to duty has at all times exerted a
   most salutary influence upon clergymen in high and influential
   stations. Neander not inaptly compares his work in the Greek church
   with that of Spener, the practical reformer in the Lutheran church of
   the seventeenth century, and calls him a martyr of Christian charity,
   who fell a victim in the conflict with the worldly spirit of his age.
   [2013]

   In the pulpit Chrysostom was a monarch of unlimited power over his
   hearers. His sermons were frequently interrupted by noisy theatrical
   demonstrations of applause, which he indignantly rebuked as unworthy of
   the house of God. [2014] He had trained his natural gift of eloquence,
   which was of the first order, in the school of Demosthenes and
   Libanius, and ennobled and sanctified it in the higher school of the
   Holy Spirit. [2015] He was in the habit of making careful preparation
   for his sermons by the study of the Scriptures, prayer, and meditation;
   but he knew how to turn to good account unexpected occurrences, and
   some of his noblest efforts were extemporaneous effusions under the
   inspiration of the occasion. His ideas are taken from Christian
   experience and especially from the inexhaustible stores of the Bible,
   which he made his daily bread, and which he earnestly recommended even
   to the laity. He took up whole books and explained them in order,
   instead of confining himself to particular texts, as was the custom
   after the introduction of the pericopes. His language is noble, solemn,
   vigorous, fiery, and often overpowering. Yet he was by no means wholly
   free from the untruthful exaggerations and artificial antitheses, which
   were regarded at that time as the greatest ornament and highest triumph
   of eloquence, but which appear to a healthy and cultivated taste as
   defects and degeneracies. The most eminent French preachers, Bossuet,
   Massillon, and Bourdaloue, have taken Chrysostom for their model.

   By far the most numerous and most valuable writings of this father are
   the Homilies, over six hundred in number, which he delivered while
   presbyter at Antioch and while bishop at Constantinople. [2016] They
   embody his exegesis; and of this they are a rich storehouse, from which
   the later Greek commentators, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Oecumenius,
   have drawn, sometimes content to epitomize his expositions.
   Commentaries, properly so called, he wrote only on the first eight
   chapters of Isaiah and on the Epistle to the Galatians. But nearly all
   his sermons on Scripture texts are more or less expository. He has left
   us homilies on Genesis, the Psalms, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel
   of John, the Acts, and all the Epistles of Paul, including the Epistle
   to the Hebrews. His homilies on the Pauline Epistles are especially
   esteemed. [2017]

   Besides these expository sermons on whole books of the Scriptures,
   Chrysostom delivered homilies on separate sections or verses of
   Scripture, festal discourses, orations in commemoration of apostles and
   martyrs, and discourses on special occasions. Among the last are eight
   homilies Against the Jews (against Judaizing tendencies in the church
   at Antioch), twelve homilies Against the Anomoeans (Arians), and
   especially the celebrated twenty and one homilies On the Statues, which
   called forth his highest oratorical powers. [2018] He delivered the
   homilies on the Statues at Antioch in 387 during a season of
   extraordinary public excitement, when the people, oppressed by
   excessive taxation, rose in rebellion, tore down the statues of the
   emperor Theodosius I., the deceased empress Flacilla, and the princes
   Arcadius and Honorius, dragged them through the streets, and so
   provoked the wrath of the emperor that he threatened to destroy the
   city--a calamity which was avoided by the intercession of bishop
   Flavian.

   The other works of Chrysostom are his youthful treatise on the
   Priesthood already alluded to; a number of doctrinal and moral essays
   in defence of the Christian faith, and in commendation of celibacy and
   the nobler forms of monastic life; [2019] and two hundred and forty-two
   letters, nearly all written during his exile between 403 and 407. The
   most important of the letters are two addressed to the Roman bishop
   Innocent I., with his reply, and seventeen long letters to his friend
   Olympias, a pious widow and deaconess. They all breathe a noble
   Christian spirit, not desiring to be recalled from exile, convinced
   that there is but one misfortune,--departure from the path of piety and
   virtue, and filled with cordial friendship, faithful care for all the
   interests of the church, and a calm and cheerful looking forward to the
   glories of heaven. [2020]

   The so-called Liturgy of Chrysostom, which is still in use in the Greek
   and Russian churches, has been already noticed in the proper place.
   [2021]

   Among the pupils and admirers of Chrysostom we mention as deserving of
   special notice two abbots of the first half of the fifth century: the
   elder Nilus of Sinai, who retired with his son from one of the highest
   civil stations of the empire to the contemplative solitude of Mount
   Sinai, while his wife and daughter entered a convent of Egypt; [2022]
   and Isidore of Pelusium, or Pelusiota, a native of Alexandria, who
   presided over a convent not far from the mouth of the Nile, and
   sympathized with Cyril against Nestorius, but warned him against his
   violent passions. [2023] They are among the worthiest representatives
   of ancient monasticism, and, in a large number of letters and
   exegetical and ascetic treatises, they discuss, with learning, piety,
   judgment, and moderation, nearly all the theological and practical
   questions of their age.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2005] Baur(Vorlesungen über die Dogmengeschichte, Bd. i. Abthlg. ii.
   p. 50) and others erroneously state the year 354 as that of his birth.
   Comp. Tillemont and Montfaucon (tom. xiii. 91).

   [2006] Babai, hoiai para christianois gunaikes eisi . Chrysostom
   himself relates this of his heathen teacher (by whom undoubtedly we are
   to understand Libanius), though, it Is true, with immediate reference
   only to the twenty years' widowhood of his mother; Ad viduam juniorem,
   Opera, tom. i. p. 340. Comp. the remarks of Montfaucon in the Vita,
   tom. xiii. 92.

   [2007] Peri hierosunes. De sacerdotio libri vi. Separate editions are:
   That of Frobenius at Basel, 1525, Greek, with a preface by Erasmus;
   that of Hughes at Cam. bridge, 1710, Greek and Latin, with the Life of
   Chrysostomby Cave; that of J. A. Bengel, Stuttgart, 1725, Greek and
   Latin, reprinted at Leipsic in 1825 and 1834; besides several
   translations into modern languages. Comp. above, § 51, p. 253.

   [2008] Compare Tillemont, Montfaucon, and Neander (l.c. i. p. 86 ff.).

   [2009] Compare particulars above, § 134.

   [2010] Julianof Eclanum had already appealed several times to
   Chrysostomagainst Augustine, as Augustinenotes Contra Jul., and in the
   Opus imperfectum.

   [2011] Niedner(Geschichte der christl. Kirche, 1846, p. 323, and in his
   posthumous Lehrbuch, 1866, p. 303) briefly characterizes him thus: "In
   him we find a most complete mutual interpenetration of theoretical and
   practical theology, as well as of the dogmatical and ethical elements,
   exhibited mainly in the fusion of the exegetical and homiletical. Hence
   his exegesis was guarded against barren philology and dogma; and his
   pulpit discourse was free from doctrinal abstraction and empty
   rhetoric. The introduction of the knowledge of Christianity from the
   sources into the practical life of the people left him little time for
   the development of special dogmas.

   [2012] The toparchoiand huparchoi, the praefect praetorio. Homil. iii.
   in Acta Apost.

   [2013] In his monograph on Chrysostom, vol. i. p. 5.

   [2014] This Greek custom of applauding the preacher by clapping the
   hands and stamping the feet (called krotos, from krouo) was a sign of
   the secularization of the church after its union with the state. It is
   characteristic of his age that a powerful sermon of Chrysostomagainst
   this abuse was most enthusiastically applauded by his hearers!

   [2015] Karl Hase(Kirchengeschichte, § 104, seventh edition) truly says
   of Chrysostomthat "he complemented the sober clearness of the
   Antiochian exegesis and the rhetorical arts of Libanius with the depth
   of his warm Christian heart, and that he carried out in his own life,
   as far as mortal man can do it, the ideal of the priesthood which, in
   youthful enthusiasm, he once described."

   [2016] They are contained in vols. ii.-xii of the Benedictine edition.

   [2017] A beautiful edition of the Homilies on the Pauline Epistles in
   Greek (but without the Latin version) has been recently published in
   connection with the Oxford Library of the Fathers under the title: S.
   Joannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum per
   homilias facta, Oxon. 1849-'52, 4 vols. The English translation has
   already been noticed.

   [2018] The Homiliae xii contra Anomoeans de incomprehensibili Dei
   natura, and the Orationes viii adversus Judaeos are in the first, the
   Homilies xxi ad populum Antiochenum, de statuis, and the six Orationes
   de fato et providential in the second volume of the Bened. edition. The
   Homilies on the Statues are translated into English in the Oxford
   Library of the Fathers, 1842, 1 volume.

   [2019] Ad Theodorum lapsum; Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae;
   Comparatio regis et monachi; De compunctione cordis; De virginitate; Ad
   viduam juniorem, etc.,--all in the first volume of the Bened. edition
   together with the vi Libri de Sacerdotio; also in Lomler's selection of
   Chrys. Opera praestantissima.

   [2020] The Epistles are in tom. iii. The Epistolae ad Olympiadem, and
   ad Innocentium are also included in Lomler's selection (pp. 165-252).
   On Olympias, compare above, § 52, and especially Tillemont, tom. xi.
   pp. 416-440.

   [2021] See above, § 99.

   [2022] Comp. S. P. N. Niliabbatis opera omnia, variorum curis, nempe
   Leonis Allatii, Petri Possini, etc., edita, nunc primum in unum
   collecta et ordinata, accurante J. P. Migne, Par. 1860, 1 volume.
   (Patrol. Gr. tom. 79.)

   [2023] Comp. S. Isidori PelusiotaeEpistolarum libri v, ed. Possinus
   (Jesuit), republished by Migne, Par. 1860. (Patrol. Gr. tom. 78,
   including the dissertation of H. Ag. Niemeyer: De Isid. Pel. vita,
   scriptis et doctrina, Hal. 1825.) It is not certain that Isidore was a
   pupil of Chrysostom, but he frequently mentions him with respect, and
   was evidently well acquainted with his writings. See the dissertation
   of Niemeyer, in Migne's ed. p. 15 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 171. Cyril of Alexandria.

   I. S. Cyrillus, Alex. archiepisc.: Opera omnia, Gr. et Lat., cura et
   studio Joan. Auberti. Lutetiae, 1638, 6 vols. in 7 fol. The same
   edition with considerable additions by J. P. Migne, Petit-Montrouge,
   1859, in 10 vols. (Patrol. Gr. tom. lxviii-lxxvii.). Comp. Angelo Mai's
   Nova Bibliotheca Patrum, tom. ii. pp. 1-498 (Rom. 1844), and tom. iii.
   (Rom. 1845), where several writings of Cyril are printed for the first
   time, viz.: De incarnatione Domini; Explanatio in Lucam; Homiliae;
   Excerpta; Fragments of Commentaries on the Psalms, and the Pauline and
   Catholic Epistles. (These additional works are incorporated in Migne's
   edition.) Cyrilli Commentarii in Lucca Evangelium quae supersunt,
   Syriace, e manuscriptis spud museum Britannicum edidit Rob. Payne
   Smith, Oxonii, 1858. The same also in an English version with valuable
   notes by R. P. Smith, Oxford, 1859, in 2 vols.

   II. Scattered notices of Cyril in Socrates, Marius Mercator, and the
   Acts of the ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Tillemont:
   Tom. xiv. 267-676, and notes, pp. 747-795. Cellier: Tom. xiii. 241 sqq.
   Acta Sanctorum: Jan. 28, tom. ii. A. Butler: Jan. 28. Fabricius:
   Biblioth. Gr. ed. Harless, vol. ix. p. 446 sqq. (The Vita of the
   Bollandists and the Noticia literaria of Fabricius are also reprinted
   in Migne's edition of Cyril, tom. i. pp. 1-90.) Schröckh Theil xviii.
   313-354. Comp. also the Prefaces of Angelo Mai to tom. ii. of the Nova
   Bibl. Patrum, and of R. P. Smith to his translation of Cyril's
   Commentary on Luke.

   While the lives and labors of most of the fathers of the church
   continually inspire our admiration and devotion, Cyril of Alexandria
   makes an extremely unpleasant, or at least an extremely equivocal,
   impression. He exhibits to us a man making theology and orthodoxy the
   instruments of his passions.

   Cyrillus became patriarch of Alexandria about the year 412. He trod in
   the footsteps of his predecessor and uncle, the notorious Theophilus,
   who had deposed the noble Chrysostom and procured his banishment; in
   fact, he exceeded Theophilus in arrogance and violence. He had hardly
   entered upon his office, when he closed all the churches of the
   Novatians in Alexandria, and seized their ecclesiastical property. In
   the year 415 he fell upon the synagogues of the very numerous Jews with
   armed force, because, under provocation of his bitter injustice, they
   had been guilty of a trifling tumult; he put some to death, and drove
   out the rest, and exposed their property to the excited multitude.

   These invasions of the province of the secular power brought him into
   quarrel and continual contest with Orestes, the imperial governor of
   Alexandria. He summoned five hundred monks from the Nitrian mountains
   for his guard, who publicly insulted the governor. One of them, by the
   name of Ammon, wounded him with a stone, and was thereupon killed by
   Orestes. But Cyril caused the monk to be buried in state in a church as
   a holy martyr to religion, and surnamed him Thaumasios, the Admirable;
   yet he found himself compelled by the universal disgust of cultivated
   people to let this act be gradually forgotten.

   Cyril is also frequently charged with the instigation of the murder of
   the renowned Hypatia, a friend of Orestes. But in this cruel tragedy he
   probably had only the indirect part of exciting the passions of the
   Christian populace which led to it, and of giving them the sanction of
   his high office. [2024]

   From his uncle he had learned a strong aversion to Chrysostom, and at
   the notorious Synodus ad Quercum near Chalcedon, a.d. 403, he voted for
   his deposition. He therefore obstinately resisted the patriarchs of
   Constantinople and Antioch, when, shortly after the death of
   Chrysostom, they felt constrained to repeal his unjust condemnation;
   and he was not even ashamed to compare that holy man to the traitor
   Judas. Yet he afterwards yielded, at least in appearance, to the urgent
   remonstrances of Isidore of Pelusium and others, and admitted the name
   of Chrysostom into the diptychs [2025] of his church (419), and so
   brought the Roman see again into communication with Alexandria.

   From the year 428 to his death in 444 his life was interwoven with the
   Christological controversies. He was the most zealous and the most
   influential champion of the anti-Nestorian orthodoxy at the third
   ecumenical council, and scrupled at no measures to annihilate his
   antagonist. Besides the weapons of theological learning and acumen, he
   allowed himself also the use of wilful misrepresentation, artifice,
   violence, instigation of people and monks at Constantinople, and
   repeated bribery of imperial officers, even of the emperor's sister
   Pulcheria. By his bribes he loaded the church property at Alexandria
   with debt, though he left considerable wealth even to his kindred, and
   adjured his successor, the worthless Dioscurus, with the most solemn
   religious ceremonies, not to disturb his heirs. [2026]

   His subsequent exertions for the restoration of peace cannot wipe these
   stains from his character; for he was forced to those exertions by the
   power of the opposition. His successor Dioscurus, however (after 444),
   made him somewhat respectable by inheriting all his passions without
   his theological ability, and by setting them in motion for the
   destruction of the peace.

   Cyril furnishes a striking proof that orthodoxy and piety are two quite
   different things, and that zeal for pure doctrine may coëxist with an
   unchristian spirit. In personal character he unquestionably stands far
   below his unfortunate antagonist. The judgment of the Catholic
   historians is bound by the authority of their church, which, in strange
   blindness, has canonized him. [2027] Yet Tillemont feels himself
   compelled to admit that Cyril did much that is unworthy of a saint.
   [2028] The estimate of Protestant historians has been the more severe.
   The moderate and honest Chr. W. Franz Walch can hardly give him credit
   for anything good; [2029] and the English historian, H. H. Milman, says
   he would rather appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, loaded with
   all the heresies of Nestorius, than with the barbarities of Cyril.
   [2030]

   But the faults of his personal character should not blind us to the
   merits of Cyril as a theologian. He was a man of vigorous and acute
   mind and extensive learning and is clearly to be reckoned among the
   most important dogmatic and polemic divines of the Greek church. [2031]
   Of his contemporaries Theodoret alone was his superior. He was the last
   considerable representative of the Alexandrian theology and the
   Alexandrian church, which, however, was already beginning to degenerate
   and stiffen; and thus be offsets Theodoret, who is the most learned
   representative of the Antiochian school. He aimed to be the same to the
   doctrine of the incarnation and the person of Christ, that his purer
   and greater predecessor in the see of Alexandria had been to the
   doctrine of the Trinity a century before. But he overstrained the
   supranaturalism and mysticism of the Alexandrian theology, and in his
   zeal for the reality of the incarnation and the unity of the person of
   Christ, he went to the brink of the monophysite error; even sustaining
   himself by the words of Athanasius, though not by his spirit, because
   the Nicene age had not yet fixed beyond all interchange the theological
   distinction between ousia and hupostasis. [2032]

   And connected with this is his enthusiastic zeal for the honor of Mary
   as the virgin-mother of God. In a pathetic and turgid eulogy on Mary,
   which he delivered at Ephesus during the third ecumenical council, he
   piles upon her predicates which exceed all biblical limits, and border
   upon idolatry. [2033] "Blessed be thou," says he, "O mother of God!
   Thou rich treasure of the world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of
   virginity, sceptre of true doctrine, imperishable temple, habitation of
   Him whom no space can contain, mother and virgin, through whom He is,
   who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed be thou, O Mary, who didst
   hold in thy womb the Infinite One; thou through whom the blessed
   Trinity is glorified and worshipped, through whom the precious cross is
   adored throughout the world, through whom heaven rejoices and angels
   and archangels are glad, through whom the devil is disarmed and
   banished, through whom the fallen creature is restored to heaven,
   through whom every believing soul is saved." [2034] These and other
   extravagant praises are interspersed with polemic thrusts against
   Nestorius.

   Yet Cyril did not, like Augustine, exempt the Virgin from sin or
   infirmity, but, like Basil, he ascribed to her a serious doubt at the
   crucifixion concerning the true divinity of Christ, and a shrinking
   from the cross, similar to that of Peter, when he was scandalized at
   the bare mention of it, and exclaimed: "Be it far from thee, Lord!"
   (Matt. xvi. 22.) In commenting on John xix. 25, Cyril says: The female
   sex somehow is ever fond of tears, [2035] and given to much lamentation
   .... It was the purpose of the holy evangelist to teach, that probably
   even the mother of the Lord Himself took offence [2036] at the
   unexpected passion; and the death upon the cross, being so very bitter,
   was near unsettling her from her fitting mind .... Doubt not that she
   admitted [2037] some such thoughts as these: I bore Him who is laughed
   at on the wood; but when He said He was the true Son of the Omnipotent
   God, perhaps somehow He was mistaken. [2038] He said, 'I am the Life;'
   how then has He been crucified? how has He been strangled by the cords
   of His murderers? how did He not prevail over the plot of His
   persecutors? why does He not descend from the cross, since He bade
   Lazarus to return to life, and filled all Judaea with amazement at His
   miracles? And it is very natural that woman, [2039] not knowing the
   mystery, should slide into some such trains of thought. For we should
   understand, that the gravity of the circumstances of the Passion was
   enough to overturn even a self-possessed mind; it is no wonder then if
   woman [2040] slipped into this reasoning." Cyril thus understands the
   prophecy of Simeon (Luke ii. 35) concerning the sword, which, he says,
   "meant the most acute pain, cutting down the woman's mind into
   extravagant thoughts. For temptations test the hearts of those who
   suffer them, and make bare the thoughts which are in them." [2041]

   Aside from his partisan excesses, he powerfully and successfully
   represented the important truth of the unity of the person of Christ
   against the abstract dyophysitism of Nestorius.

   For this reason his Christological writings against Nestorius and
   Theodoret are of the greatest importance to the history of doctrine.
   [2042] Besides these he has left us a valuable apologetic work,
   composed in the year 433, and dedicated to the emperor Theodosius II.,
   in refutation of the attack of Julian the Apostate upon Christianity;
   [2043] and a doctrinal work on the Trinity and the incarnation. [2044]
   As an expositor he has the virtues and the faults of the arbitrary
   allegorizing and dogmatizing method of the Alexandrians, and with all
   his copiousness of thought he affords far less solid profit than
   Chrysostom or Theodoret. He has left extended commentaries, chiefly in
   the form of sermons, on the Pentateuch (or rather on the most important
   sections and the typical significance of the ceremonial law), on
   Isaiah, on the twelve Minor Prophets, and on the Gospel of John. [2045]
   To these must now be added fragments of expositions of the Psalms, and
   of some of the Epistles of Paul, first edited by Angelo Mai; and a
   homiletical commentary on the Gospel of Luke, which likewise has but
   recently become known, first by fragments in the Greek original, and
   since complete in a Syriac translation from the manuscripts of a
   Nitrian monastery. [2046] And, finally, the works of Cyril include
   thirty Easter Homilies (Homiliae paschales), in which, according to
   Alexandrian custom, he announced the time of Easter; several homilies
   delivered in Ephesus and elsewhere; and eighty-eight Letters, relating
   for the most part, to the Nestorian controversies. [2047]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2024] Comp. above, § 6, p. 67, and Tillemont, tom. xiv. 274-'76. The
   learned, but superstitious and credulous Roman Catholic hagiographer,
   Alban Butler (Lives of the Saints, sub Jan. 28), considers Cyril
   innocent, and appeals to the silence of Orestes and Socrates. But
   Socrates, H. E. l. vii. c. 15, expressly says of this revolting murder:
   Touto ou mikron momon Kurillo, kai te ton Alexandreon ekklesia
   eirgasato, and adds that nothing can be so contrary to the spirit of
   Christianity as the permission of murders and similar acts of violence.
   Walch, Schröckh, Gibbon, and Milman incline to hold Cyril responsible
   for the murder of Hypatia, which was perpetrated under the direction of
   a reader of his church, by the name of Peter. But the evidence is not
   sufficient. J. C. Robertson (History of the Christian Church, i. p.
   401) more cautiously says: "That Cyril had any share in this atrocity
   appears to be an unsupported calumny; but the perpetrators were mostly
   officers of his church, and had unquestionably drawn encouragement from
   his earlier proceedings; and his character deservedly suffered in
   consequence." Similarly W. Bright (A History of the Church from 313 to
   451, p. 275): "Had there been no onslaught on the syna gogues, there
   would doubtless have been no murder of Hypatia."

   [2025] That is, the diptucha nekron, or two-leaved tablets, with the
   list of names of distinguished martyrs and bishops, and other persons
   of merit, of whom mention was to be made in the prayers of the church.
   The Greek church has retained the use of diptychs to this day.

   [2026] Dioscurus, however, did not keep his word, but extorted from the
   heirs of Cyril immense sums of money, and reduced them to extreme want.
   So one of Cyril's relatives complained to the Conc, Chalc. Act. iii. in
   Hardouin, tom. ii. 406). A verification of the Proverb: Ill gotten, ill
   gone.

   [2027] Even the monophysite Copts and Abyssinians celebrate his memory
   under the abbreviated name of Kerlos, and the title of Doctor of the
   World.

   [2028] Mémoires, xiv. 541: "S. Cyrille est Saint: mais on ne peut pas
   dire que toutes es actions soient saintes."

   [2029] Comp. the description at the close of the fifth volume of his
   tedious but thorough Ketzerhistorie, where, after recounting the faults
   of Cyril, he exclaims, p. 932: "Can a man read such a character without
   a shudder? And yet nothing is fabricated here, nothing overdrawn;
   nothing is done but to collect what is scattered in history. And what
   is worst: I find nothing at all that can be said in his praise."
   Schröckh(l.c. p. 352), in his prolix and loquacious way, gives an
   equally unfavorable opinion, and the more extols his antagonist
   Theodoret (p. 355 sqq.), who was a much more learned and pious man, but
   in his life-time was persecuted, and after his death condemned as a
   heretic, while Cyril was pronounced a saint.

   [2030] History of Latin Christianity, vol. i. p. 210: "Cyril of
   Alexandria, to those who esteem the stern and uncompromising assertion
   of certain Christian tenets the one paramount Christian virtue, may be
   the hero, even the saint: but while ambition, intrigue, arrogance,
   rapacity, and violence, are proscribed as unchristian means--barbarity,
   persecution, bloodshed, as unholy and unevangelic
   wickednesses--posterity will condemn the orthodox Cyril as one of the
   worst heretics against the spirit of the Gospel. Who would not meet the
   judgment of the divine Redeemer loaded with the errors of Nestorius
   rather than the barbarities of Cyril?"

   [2031] Baur(Vorlesungen über Dogmengeschichte, i. ii. p. 47) says of
   Cyril: "The current estimate of him is not altogether just. As a
   theologian he must be placed higher than he usually is. He remained
   true to the spirit of the Alexandrian theology, particularly in his
   predilection for the allegorical and the mystical, and he had a
   doctrine consistent with itself."

   [2032] This is not considered by R. P. Smith, when, in the Preface to
   his English translation of Cyril's Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
   from the Syriac (p. v.), he says, that Cyril never transcended
   Athanasius' doctrine of mia phusis tou Theoulogou sesarkomene, and that
   both are irreconcilable with the dogma of Chalcedon, which rests upon
   the Antiochian theology. Comp. §§ 137-140, above.

   [2033] Encomium in sanctam Mariam Deiparam, in tom. v. Pars ii. p. 880
   (in Migne's ed. tom. x. 1029 sqq.).

   [2034] Di hes pasa pnoe pisteuousa sozetai

   [2035] Philodakru

   [2036] Eskandalise pathos.

   [2037] Eisedexato.

   [2038] All huion heauton alethinon einai legon tou panton kratountos
   Theou, tacha pou kai diesphalleto.

   [2039] Or woman's nature, to gunaion, which is sometimes used in a
   contemptuous sense, like the German Weibsbild.

   [2040] To gunaion.

   [2041] Cyril, in Joann. lib. xii. (in Migne's ed. of Cyril, vol. vii.
   col. 661 sq.). Dr. J. H. Newman(in his Letter to Dr. Pusey on his
   Eirenicon, Lond. 1866, p. 136) escapes the force of the argument of
   this and similar passages of Basil and Chrysostomagainst the Roman
   Mariolatry by the sophistical distinction, that they are not directed
   against the Virgin's person, so much as against her nature (to
   gunaion), of which the fathers had the low estimation then prevalent,
   looking upon womankind as the "varium et mutabile semper," and knowing
   little of that true nobility which is exemplified in the females of the
   Germanic races, and in those of the old Jewish stock, Miriam, Deborah,
   Judith, Susanna. But it was to the human nature of Mary, and not to
   human nature in the abstract, that Cyril, whether right or wrong,
   attributed a doubt concerning the true divinity of her Son. I think
   there is no warrant for such a supposition in the accounts of the
   crucifixion, and the sword in the prophecy of Simeon means anguish
   rather than doubt. But this makes the antagonism of these Greek fathers
   with the present Roman Mariology only the more striking. Newman(l.c. p.
   144) gratuitously assumes that the tradition of the sinlessness of the
   holy Virgin was obliterated and confused at Antioch and New Caesarea by
   the Arian troubles. But this would apply at best only to Chrysostomand
   Basil, and not to Cyril of Alexandria, who lived half a century after
   the defeat of Arianism at the second ecumenical council, and who was
   the leading champion of the theotokos in the Nestorian controversy.
   Besides there is no clear trace of the doctrine of the sinlessness of
   Mary before St. Augustine, either among the Greek or Latin fathers; for
   the tradition of Mary as the second Eve does not necessarily imply that
   doctrine, and was associated in Irenaeus and Tertullianwith views
   similar to those expressed by Basil, Chrysostom, and Cyril. Comp. §§ 81
   and 82, above.

   [2042] Adversus Nestorii blasphemias contradictionum libri v (Kata ton
   Nestoriou dusphemion pentabiblos antirrhetos); Explanatio xii capitum
   s. anathematismorum (Epilusis ton dodeka kephalaion); Apologeticus pro
   xii capitibus adversus Orientales episcopos; Contra Theodoretum pro xii
   capitibus--all in the last volume of the edition of Aubert (in Migne,
   in tom. ix.).

   [2043] Contra Julianum Apostatam libri x, tom. vi. in Aubert (tom. ix.
   in Migne); also in Spanheim's Opera Juliani. Comp. §§ 4 and 9, above.

   [2044] De S. Trinitate, et de incarnatione Unigeniti, etc., tom. v.
   Pars i. Not to be confounded with the spurious work Detrinitate, in
   tom. vi. 1-35, which combats the monothelite heresy, and is therefore
   of much later origin.

   [2045] Tom. i.-iv.

   [2046] By Angelo Mai and R. P. Smith. See the Literature above.

   [2047] The Homilies and Letters in tom. v. Pars ii. ed. Aubert (in
   Migne, with additions, in tom. x.).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 172. Ephraem the Syrian.

   I. S. Ephraem Syrus: Opera omnia quae exstant Greece, Syriace, Latine,
   in sex tomos distributa, ad MSS. codices Vaticanos aliosque castigata,
   etc.: nunc primum, sub auspiciis S. P. Clementis XII. Pontificis Max. e
   Bibl. Vaticana prodeunt. Edited by the celebrated Oriental scholar J.
   S. Assemani (assisted by his nephew Stephen Evodius Assemani, 1732-'43,
   6 vols. and the Maronite Jesuit Peter Benedict). Romae, fol. (vols.
   i.-iii. contain the Greek and Latin translations; vols. iv.-vi., which
   are also separately numbered i.-iii., the Syriac writings with a Latin
   version). Supplementary works edited by the Mechitarists, Venet. 1836,
   4 vols. 8 vo. The hymns of Ephraem have also been edited by Aug. Hahn
   and Fr. L. Sieffert: Chrestomathia Syriaca sive S. Ephraemi carmina
   selecta, notis criticis, philologicis, historicis, et glossario
   locupletissimo illustr., Lips. 1825; and by Daniel: Thes. hymn. tom.
   iii. (Lips. 1855) pp. 139-268. German translation by Zingerle: Die
   heil. Muse der Syrer. Innsbruck, 1830. English translation by Henry
   Burgess: Select metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephr. Syrus, transl.
   Lond. 1853, 2 vols. 12 mo. Comp. § 114, above.

   II. Gregorius Nyss.: Vita et encomium S. Ephr. Syr. (in Opera Greg. ed.
   Paris. 1615, tom. ii. pp. 1027-1048; or in Migne's ed. of Greg. tom.
   iii. 819-850, and in Ephr. Op. tom. i.). The Vita per Metaphrastem;
   several anonymous biographies; the Testimonia veterum and Judicia
   recentiorum; the Dissertation de rebus gestis, scriptis, editionibusque
   Ephr. Syr., etc., all in the first volume, and the Acta Ephraemi
   Syriaca auctore anonymo, in the sixth volume, of Assemani's edition of
   the Opera Ephr. Jerome: Cat. vir. ill.c. 115. Sozomen: H. E. iii. c.
   16; vi. 34. Theodoret: H. E. iv. 29. Acta Sanctorum for Fehr. i. (Antw.
   1658), pp. 67-78. Butler: The Lives of the Saints, sub July 9. W. Cave:
   Lives of the Fathers, &c. Vol. iii. 404-412 (Oxford ed. of 1840).
   Fabricius: Bibl. Gr. (reprinted in Assemani's ed. of the Opera i.
   lxiii. sqq.). Lengerke: De Ephraemo Syro S. Scripturae interprete, Hal.
   1828; De Ephr. arte hermeneutica, Regiom. 1831. Alsleben: Das Leben des
   h. Ephraem. Berlin, 1853. E. Rödiger: Art. Ephräm in Herzog's Encykl.
   vol. iv. (1855), p. 85 ff.

   Before we leave the Oriental fathers, we must give a sketch of Ephraem
   or Ephraim [2048] the most distinguished divine, orator, and poet, of
   the ancient Syrian church. He is called "the pillar of the church,"
   "the teacher," "the prophet, of the Syrians," and as a hymn-writer "the
   guitar of the Holy Ghost." His life was at an early date interwoven
   with miraculous legends, and it is impossible to sift the truth from
   pious fiction.

   He was born of heathen parents in Mesopotamia (either at Edessa or at
   Nisibis) in the beginning of the fourth century, and was expelled from
   home by his father, a priest of the god Abnil, for his leaning to
   Christianity. [2049] He went to the venerated bishop and confessor
   Jacob of Nisibis, who instructed and probably also baptized him, took
   him to the council of Nicaea in 325, and employed him as teacher. He
   soon acquired great celebrity by his sacred learning, his zealous
   orthodoxy, and his ascetic piety. In 363, after the cession of Nisibis
   to the Persians, he withdrew to Roman territory, and settled in Edessa,
   which about that time became the chief seat of Christian learning in
   Syria. [2050] He lived a hermit in a cavern near the city, and spent
   his time in ascetic exercises, in reading, writing, and preaching to
   the monks and the people with great effect. He acquired complete
   mastery over his naturally violent temper, he denied himself all
   pleasures, and slept on the bare ground. He opposed the remnants of
   idolatry in the surrounding country, and defended the Nicene orthodoxy
   against all classes of heretics. He made a journey to Egypt, where he
   spent several years among the hermits. He also visited, by divine
   admonition, Basil the Great at Caesarea, who ordained him deacon. Basil
   held him in the highest esteem, and afterwards sent two of his pupils
   to Edessa to ordain him bishop; but Ephraem, in order to escape the
   responsible office, behaved like a fool, and the messengers returned
   with the report that he was out of his mind. Basil told them that the
   folly was on their side, and Ephraem was a man full of divine wisdom.

   Shortly before his death, when the city of Edessa was visited by a
   severe famine, Ephraem quitted his solitary cell and preached a
   powerful sermon against the rich for permitting the poor to die around
   them, and told them that their wealth would ruin their soul, unless
   they made good use of it. The rich men felt the rebuke, and intrusted
   him with the distribution of their goods. Ephraem fitted up about three
   hundred beds, and himself attended to the sufferers, whether they were
   foreigners or natives, till the calamity was at an end. Then he
   returned to his cell, and a few days after, about the year 379, he
   expired, soon following his friend Basil.

   Ephraem, says Sozomen, attained no higher clerical degree than that of
   deacon, but his attainments in virtue rendered him equal in reputation
   to those who rose to the highest sacerdotal dignity, while his holy
   life and erudition made him an object of universal admiration. He left
   many disciples who were zealously attached to his doctrines. The most
   celebrated of them were Abbas, Zenobius, Abraham, Maras, and Simeon,
   whom the Syrians regard as the glory of their country. [2051]

   Ephraem was an uncommonly prolific author. His fertility was
   prophetically revealed to him in his early years by the vision of a
   vine which grew from the root of his tongue, spreading in every
   direction to the ends of the earth, and was loaded with new and heavier
   clusters the more it was plucked. His writings consist of commentaries
   on the Scriptures, homilies, ascetic tracts, and sacred poetry. The
   commentaries and hymns, or metrical prose, are preserved in the Syriac
   original, and have an independent philological value for Oriental
   scholars. The other writings exist only in Greek, Latin, and Armenian
   translations. Excellent Greek translations were known and extensively
   read so early as the time of Chrysostom and Jerome. His works furnish
   no clear evidence of his knowledge of the Greek language; some writers
   assert his acquaintance with Greek, others deny it. [2052]

   His commentaries extended over the whole Bible, "from the book of
   creation to the last book of grace," as Gregory of Nyssa says. We have
   his commentaries on the historical and prophetical books of the Old
   Testament and the Book of Job in Syriac, and his commentaries on the
   Epistles of Paul in an Armenian translation. [2053] They have been but
   little used thus far by commentators. He does not interpret the text
   from the original Hebrew, but from the old Syriac translation, the
   Peshito. [2054]

   His sermons and homilies, of which, according to Photius, he composed
   more than a thousand, are partly expository, partly polemical, against
   Jews, heathen, and heretics. [2055] They evince a considerable degree
   of popular eloquence; they are full of pathos, exclamations,
   apostrophes, antitheses, illustrations, severe rebuke, and sweet
   comfort, according to the subject; but also full of exaggerations,
   bombast, prolixity, and the superstitious of his age, such as the
   over-estimate of ascetic virtue, and excessive veneration of the Virgin
   Mary, the saints, and relics. [2056] Some of his sermons were publicly
   read after the Bible lesson in many Oriental and even Occidental
   churches. [2057]

   His hymns were intended to counteract the influence of the heretical
   views of Bardesanes and his son Harmonius, which spread widely by means
   of popular Syrian songs. "When Ephraem perceived," says Sozomen, "that
   the Syrians were charmed with the elegant diction and melodious
   versification of Harmonius, he became apprehensive, lest they should
   imbibe the same opinions; and therefore, although he was ignorant of
   Greek learning, he applied himself to the study of the metres of
   Harmonius, and composed similar poems in accordance with the doctrines
   of the church, and sacred hymns in praise of holy men. From that period
   the Syrians sang the odes of Ephraem, according to the method indicated
   by Harmonius." Theodoret gives a similar account, and says, that the
   hymns of Ephraem combined harmony and melody with piety, and subserved
   all the purposes of valuable and efficacious medicine against the
   heretical hymns of Harmonius. It is reported that he wrote no less than
   three hundred thousand verses. [2058] But, with the exception of his
   commentaries, all his Syriac works are written in verse, i.e., in lines
   of an equal number of syllables, and with occasional rhyme and
   assonance, though without regular metre. [2059]

   II.--The Latin Fathers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2048] The Greeks spell his name Ephraim,,, the Latins Ephraem.

   [2049] This is the account of the Syriac Acta Ephraemi, in the sixth
   volume of the Opera p. xxiii sqq. But according to another account,
   which is followed by Butler and Cave, his parents were Christians, and
   dedicated him to God from the cradle.

   [2050] On the early history of Christianity in Edessa, compare W.
   Cureton: Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the earliest
   Establishment of Christianity in Edessa and the neighboring Countries,
   from the Year after our Lord's Ascension to the Beginning of the Fourth
   Century. Lond. 1866.

   [2051] Sozomen, H. E. iii. 16. Cave(I. c. iii. 409) says of him: "He
   had all the virtues that can render a man great and excellent, and this
   that crowned all the rest, that he would not know it, nor cared to hear
   of it; being desirous, as Nyssen tells us, ou dokein, all einai
   chrestos, not to seem, but to be really good."

   [2052] Sozomen and Theodoret expressly say that Ephraem was not
   acquainted with the Greek language, but used the Syriac "as a medium
   for reflecting the rays of divine grace." According to the legend he
   was miraculously endowed with the knowledge of the Greek on his visit
   to Basil, who was in like manner inspired to greet him in Syriac.

   [2053]  Opera, tom. iv. and v., or vol. i. and ii. of the Opera Syr.,
   and the supplements of the Mechitarists.

   [2054] He refers, however, occasionally to the original, as, for
   instance, ad Gen. i. 1: Interjecta particula 't , quae in Hebraico
   textu hac loco legitur, idem valet, quod Syriacus articulus ." (Opera,
   vi. 116.) But such references prove no more than a superficial
   knowledge of Hebrew.

   [2055] Opera, tom. i. ii. iii. and iv. Compare Photius, Bibl. Cod. 196.

   [2056] There is even a prayer to the holy Virgin (in Latin only) in his
   Works, tom. iii. p. 577; if it be genuine; for there are no other clear
   traces of such prayers before the fifth century. Mary is there
   addressed as "immaculata ... atque ab omni sorde ac labe peccati
   alienissima, virgo Dei sponsa, ac Domina nostra, " etc.

   [2057] Hieron, De script. eccl.c.115,

   [2058] Sozomen, iii. 16: triakosia muriada epon, --epeand stichoiis
   equivalent to verses or lines. Origen says of the Book of Job that it
   contains nearly 10,000 epe.

   [2059] Comp. Rödiger, in Herzog's Encycl. vol. iv. p. 89, and the
   Observationes prosodicae of Hahnand Sieffertin their Chrestomathia
   Syriaca.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 173. Lactantius.

   I. Lactantius, Lucius Caecilius Firmianus: Opera. First edition in
   venerabili monasterio Sublacensi, 1465. (Brunet: "Livre précieux, qui
   est en même temps la première édition de Lactance, et le premier
   ouvrage impr. en Italia avec date.") Later editions by J. L. Brünemann,
   Lips. 1739; Le Brun and N. Lenglet Du Fresnoy, Par. 1748, 2 vols. 4to;
   F. E. a S. Xaverio, Rom. 1754-'9, and Migne, Par. 1844, in 2 vols. A
   convenient manual edition by O. Fridol. Fritzsche, in Gersdorf's
   Bibliotheca Patrum ecclesiast. selecta, Lips. 1842, vol. x. and xi.

   II. The introductory essays to the editions. Jerome: Cat. vir. illustr.
   c. 80. Notices in Dupin, Ceillier, Cave (Vol. iii. pp. 373-384),
   Schönemann (Biblioth. Patr. Lat. i. 177 sqq.), &c. Möhler: Patrologie,
   i. pp. 917-933. On the Christology of Lactantius, comp. Dorner:
   Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre Von der Person Christi. Th. i. p. 761
   ff.

   Firmiamus Lactantius stands among the Latin fathers, like Eusebius
   among the Greek, on the border between the second period and the third,
   and unites in his reminiscences the personal experience of both the
   persecution and the victory of the church in the Roman empire; yet in
   his theological views he belongs rather to the ante-Nicene age.

   According to his own confession he sprang from heathen parents. He was
   probably, as some have inferred from his name, a native of Firmum
   (Fermo) in Italy; he studied in the school of the rhetorician and
   apologist Arnobius of Sicca, and on this account has been taken by some
   for an African; he made himself known by a poetical work called
   Symposion, a collection of a hundred riddles in hexameters for table
   amusement; and he was called to Nicomedia by Dioclesian to teach Latin
   eloquence. But as this city was occupied mostly by Greeks, he had few
   hearers, and devoted himself to authorship. [2060] In his manhood,
   probably shortly before or during the persecution under Dioclesian, he
   embraced Christianity; he was witness of the cruel scenes of that
   persecution, though not himself a sufferer in it; and he wrote in
   defence of the hated and reviled religion.

   Constantine subsequently (after 312) brought him to his court in Gaul,
   and committed to him the education of his son Crispus, whom the emperor
   caused to be executed in 326. At court he lived very simply, and
   withstood the temptations of luxury and avarice. He is said to have
   died in the imperial residence at Treves at a great age, about the year
   330.

   Jerome calls Lactantius the most learned man of his time. [2061] His
   writings certainly give evidence of varied and thorough knowledge, of
   fine rhetorical culture, and particularly of eminent power of statement
   in clear, pure, and elegant style. In this last respect he surpasses
   almost all the Latin fathers, except Jerome, and has not unjustly been
   called the Christian Cicero. [2062] His is the famous derivation of the
   word religion from religare, defining it as the reunion of man with
   God, reconciliation; answering to the nature of Christianity, and
   including the three ideas of an original unity, a separation by sin,
   and a restoration of the unity again. [2063]

   But he is far more the rhetorician than the philosopher or theologian,
   and, as Jerome observes, has greater skill in the refutation of error
   than in the establishment of truth. The doctrinal matter of his
   writings, as in the case of his preceptor Arnobius, is very vague and
   unsatisfactory, and he does not belong to the narrower circle of the
   fathers, the authoritative teachers of the church. Pope Gelasius
   counted his works among the apocrypha, i.e., writings not
   ecclesiastically received.

   Notwithstanding this, his Institutes, on account of their elegant
   style, have been favorite reading, and are said to have appeared in
   more than a hundred editions. His mistakes and errors in the exposition
   of points of Christian doctrine do not amount to heresies, but are
   mostly due to the crude and unsettled state of the church doctrine at
   the time. In the doctrine of sin he borders upon Manichaeism. In
   anthropology and soteriology he follows the synergism which, until
   Augustine, was almost universal. In the doctrine of the Trinity he was,
   like most of the ante-Nicene fathers, subordinationist. He taught a
   duplex nativitas of Christ, one at the creation, and one at the
   incarnation. Christ went forth from God at the creation, as a word from
   the mouth, yet hypostatically. [2064]

   His most important work is his Divine Institutes, a comprehensive
   refutation of heathenism and defence of Christianity, designed to make
   Christianity better known among the cultivated classes, and to commend
   it by scholarship and attractive style. [2065] He seems to have begun
   the work during the Dioclesianic persecution, but afterwards to have
   enlarged and improved it about the year 321; for he dedicated it to the
   emperor, whom he celebrates as the first Christian prince. [2066]

   To the same apologetic purpose was his work De morte, or mortibus,
   persecutorum, which is of some importance to the external history of
   the church. [2067] It describes with minute knowledge, but in vehement
   tone, the cruel persecutions of the Christians from Nero to Dioclesian,
   Galerius, and Maximinus (314), and the divine judgments on the
   persecutors, who were compelled to become involuntary witnesses to the
   indestructible power of Christianity.

   In his book De opificio Dei [2068] he gives observations on the
   organization of the human nature, and on the divine wisdom displayed in
   it.

   In the treatise De ira Dei [2069] he shows that the punitive justice of
   God necessarily follows from his abhorrence of evil, and is perfectly
   compatible with his goodness; and he closes with an exhortation to live
   such a life that God may ever be gracious to us, and that we may never
   have to fear his wrath.

   We have also from Lactantius various Fragmenta and Carmina de Phoenice,
   de Passione Domini, de resurrectione Domini, and one hundred Aenigmata,
   each of three hexameters. [2070]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2060] He says of his heathen life, Inst. div. i. 1, that he trained
   youth by his "non ad virtutem, sed plane ad argutam malitiam."

   [2061] Catal.c.80: "Lact. vir omnium suo tempore eruditissimus." In Ep.
   58 ad Paulinum (ed. Vall.), c. 10, he gives the following just view of
   him: "Lact. quasi quidam fluvius eloquentiae Tullianae, utinam tam
   nostra affirmare potuisset, quam facile aliena destruxit." O. Friedol.
   Fritzsche, in the Praefatio of his edition of his Opera, thus estimates
   him: "Firm. Lactantius, qui Ciceronis felicissimus exstitit imitator,
   non solum sermonis castitate et elegantia orationisque flumine, sed,
   qua erat summa eruditione, rerum etiam copia et varietate inter
   reliquos ecclesiae latinae scriptores maxime eminuit, eoque factum est,
   ut, quamvis doctrinam ejus non satis esse sanam viros pios haud
   lateret, nunquam tamen prorsus negligeretur."

   [2062] Or, as Jerome, l. c., calls him: "Fluvius eloquentiae
   Tullianae."

   [2063] Instit. div. l. iv. cap. 28 (vol. i. p. 223, ed. Fritzsche):
   "Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo et religati sumus; unde ipsa
   religio nomen accepit, non ut Cicero interpretatus est, a relegendo"
   Cicero says, De natura deorum, ii. 28: "Qui omnia quae ad cultum deorum
   pertinerent, diligenter retmetarent et tamquam relegerent, religiosi
   dicti sunt ex relegendo, ut elegantes ex eligendo, itemque ex diligendo
   diligentes." This derivation is not impossible, since we have legio
   from legere, and several nouns ending in io from verbs of the third
   conjugation, as regio, contagio, oblivio. But the derivation of
   Lactantius gives a more correct and profound idea of religion, and
   etymologically it is equally admissible; for although religare would
   rather yield the noun religatio, yet we have optio from optare,
   rebellio from rebellare interneciofrom internecare, &c.
   Augustine(Retract. i. 13), Jerome(Ad Amos, c. 9), and the majority of
   Christian divines have adopted the definition of Lactantius.

   [2064] According to a statement of Jerome(Ep. 41 ad Pammach. et Ocean.)
   he denied the personality of the Holy Ghost.

   [2065] Institutionum divinarum libri vii. The title was chosen with
   reference to the Institutiones juris civilis (i. 1). The several books
   then bear the following superscriptions: 1. De falsa religione; 2. De
   origine erroris; 3. De fan sapientia; 4. De vera sapientia; 5. De
   justitia; 6. De vero cultu; 7. De vita beata. Lactantius himself made
   an abstract of it under the title: Epitome ad Pentadium fratrem, in
   Fritzsche, Pars ii. pp. 114-171.

   [2066] L. i. c. 1: "Quod opus nunc nominis tui auspicio inchoamus,
   Constantineimperator maxims, qui primus Romanorum principum, repudiatis
   erroribus, majestatem Dei singularis ac veri cognovisti et honorasti, "
   &c. This passage, by the way, does not appear in all the codices. Comp.
   the note in the ed. of Fritzsche, Pars i. p. 3.

   [2067] In the ed. of Fritzsche, P. ii. pp. 248-286. This work is
   wanting in the earlier editions, and also in several manuscripts, and
   is therefore sometimes denied to Lactantius, e.g., by Dom de Nourry, in
   a learned dissertation on this question, reprinted in the Appendix to
   the second volume of Migne's edition of Lactantius, p. 839 sqq. But its
   style, upon the whole, agrees with his; the work entirely suits his
   time and circumstances; and it is probably the same that Jeromecites
   under the name De persecutions. Jac. Burckhardt, in his monograph on
   Constantinethe Great, 1853, treats this book throughout as an
   untrustworthy romance, but without proof, and with an obvious aversion
   to all the fathers, similar to that of Gibbon.

   [2068] In the ed. of Fritzsche, Pars ii. pp. 172-208.

   [2069] Ibid. ii. 208-247.

   [2070] Ibid. ii. p. 286 sqq. Other works of Lactantius, cited by
   Jerome, are lost.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 174. Hilary of Poitiers.

   I. S. Hilarius Pictaviensis: Opera, studio et labore monach. S.
   Benedicti e congreg. S. Mauri. Paris, 1693, 1 vol. fol. The same ed.
   enlarged and improved by Scip. Maffei, Verona, 1730, 2 vols. fol.
   (reprinted in Venice, 1749). Am ed. by Fr. Overthür, Wirceburgi,
   1785-'88, 4 vols.; and one by Migne, Petit-Montrouge, 1844-'45, in 2
   vols. (Patrol. Lat. tom. ix. and x.).

   II. The Praefatio et Vitae in the first vol. of the ed. of Maffei, and
   Migne (tom. i. 125 sqq.). Hieronymus: De viris illustr. c. 100.
   Tillemont (tom. vii.); Ceillier (tom. v.); and Butler, sub Jan. 14.
   Kling, in Herzog's Encykl. vi. 84 ff. On the Christology of Hilary,
   comp. especially Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, i. 1037 ff.

   Hilary of Poitiers, or Pictaviensis, so named from his birth-place and
   subsequent bishopric in Southwestern France, and so distinguished from
   other men of the same name, [2071] was especially eminent in the Arian
   controversies for his steadfast confession and powerful defence of the
   orthodox faith, and has therefore been styled the "Athanasius of the
   West."

   He was born towards the end of the third century, and embraced
   Christianity in mature age, with his wife and his daughter Apra. [2072]
   He found in the Holy Scriptures the solution of the riddle of life,
   which he had sought in vain in the writings of the philosophers. In the
   year 350 he became bishop of his native city, and immediately took a
   very decided stand against Arianism, which was at that time devastating
   the Gallic church. For this he was banished by Constantius to Phrygia
   in Asia Minor, where Arianism ruled. Here, between 356 and 361, he
   wrote his twelve books on the Trinity, the main work of his life.
   [2073] He was recalled to Gaul, then banished again, and spent the last
   years of his life in rural retirement till his death in 368.

   We have from him, besides the theological work already mentioned
   several smaller polemic works against Arianism, viz., On Synods, or the
   Faith of the Orientals (358); fragments of a history of the Synod of
   Ariminum and Seleucia; a tract against the Arian emperor Constantius,
   and one against the Arian bishop Auxentius of Milan. He wrote also
   Commentaries on the Psalms (incomplete), and the Gospel of Matthew,
   which are partly a free translation of Origen, [2074] and some original
   hymns, which place him next to Ambrose among the lyric poets of the
   ancient church.

   Hilary was a man of thorough biblical knowledge, theological depth and
   acuteness, and earnest, efficient piety. He had schooled himself in the
   works of Origen and Athanasius, but was at the same time an independent
   thinker and investigator. His language is often obscure and heavy, but
   earnest and strong, recalling Tertullian. He had to reproduce the
   profound thoughts of Athanasius and other Greek fathers in the Latin
   language, which is far less adapted to speculation than the copious,
   versatile, finely-shaded Greek. The incarnation of God was to him, as
   it was to Athanasius, the centre of theology and of the Christian life.
   He had an effective hand in the development of the dogma of the
   consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and the dogma of the
   person of Christ. In this he was specially eminent for his fine use of
   the Gospel of John. But he could not get clear of subordinationism, nor
   call the Holy Ghost downright God. His Pneumatology, as well as his
   anthropology and soteriology, was, like that of all the fathers before
   Augustine, comparatively crude. In Christology he saw farther and
   deeper than many of his contemporaries. He made the distinction clear
   between the divine and the human in Christ, and yet held firmly to the
   unity of His person. He supposes a threefold birth of the Son of God:
   the eternal generation in the bosom of the Father, to whom the Son is
   equal in essence and glory; the incarnation, the humiliation of Himself
   to the form of a servant from the free impulse of love; and the birth
   of the Son of God out of the Son of Man in the resurrection, the
   transfiguration of the form of a servant into the form of God, at once
   showing forth again the full glory of God, and realizing the idea of
   humanity. [2075]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2071] As Hilarius Arelatensis ( 449), celebrated for his contest with
   pope Leo I.

   [2072] We have from him an Epistola ad Apram (or Abram in other
   manuscripts), filiam suam, written in 358, in tom. ii. 549 (ed. Migne).
   He sent to her his famous morning hymn: "Lucia largitor splendide."

   [2073] De trinitate libri xii. (tom. i. 26-472, ed. Migne).

   [2074] Jerome(De viris illustr. c. 100) says of his Commentary on the
   Psalms: "In quo opere imitatus Origenem, nonnulla etiam de suo
   addidit," and of the Commentary on Matthew and the tract on Job: "Quos
   de Graeco Origenis ad sensum transtulit."

   [2075] Klingsays, l.c. p. 94: "Hilaryholds a most important place in
   the development of Christology, and his massive analysis contains
   fruitful germs which in the succeeding centuries have been only in part
   developed; profound and comprehensive thoughts, the stimulating and
   fertilizing power of which reaches down even into our own time; nor
   need our time be ashamed to learn from this ancient master, as well as
   from other teachers of that age."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 175. Ambrose.

   I. S. Ambrosius Mediolanensis episcopus: Opera ad manuscriptos codices
   Vaticanos, Gallicanos, Belgicos, &c., emendata, studio et labore
   monachorum ord. S. Benedicti e congreg. S. Mauri (Jac. du Fricke et
   Nic. de Nourry). Paris. 1686-'90, 2 vols. fol. This edition was
   reprinted at Venice, 1748-'51, in 4 vols. fol., and in 1781 in 8 vols.
   4to, and by Abbé Migne in his Patrol., Petit-Montrouge, 1843, 2 tom. in
   4 Parts with some additions. The Libri tres de officiis, and the
   Hexaëmeron of Ambrose have also been frequently published separately. A
   convenient edition of both is included in Gersdorf's Bibliotheca Patrum
   Latinorum selecta, vols. viii. and ix. Lips. 1839. His hymns are found
   also in Daniel's Thesaurus hymnolog tom. i. p. 12 sqq.

   II. Paulinus (deacon of Milan and secretary of Ambrose): Vita S.
   Ambrosii (written by request of St. Augustine, derived from personal
   knowledge, from Marcella, sister of Ambrose, and several friends). The
   Vita of an anonymous writer, in Greek and Latin, in the Bened. ed. of
   the Opera. Both in the Appendix to tom. ii. ed. Benedictinae.
   Benedictini Editores: Vita Ambrosii ex ejus potissimum scriptis
   collecta et secundum chronologiae ordinem digesta, in the Bened. ed.,
   in the Appendix to tom. ii., and in Migne's reprint, tom. i. (very
   thorough and instructive). Comp. also the Selecta veterum testimonia de
   S. Ambr. in the same editions. The biographies of Hermant (1678),
   Tillemont (tom. x. pp. 78-306), Vagliano (Sommario degli archivescovi
   di Milano), Butler (sub Dec. 7), Schröckh, Böhringer, J. P. Silbert
   (Das Leben des heiligen Ambrosius, Wien, 1841).

   Ambrose, son of the governor (praefectus) of Gaul, which was one of the
   three great dioceses of the Western empire, was born at Treves
   (Treviri) about 340, educated at Rome for the highest civil offices,
   and after greatly distinguishing himself as a rhetorician, was elected
   imperial president (praetor) of Upper Italy; whereupon Probus, prefect
   of Italy, gave him the remarkable advice, afterwards interpreted as an
   involuntary prophecy: "Go, and act not the judge, but the bishop." He
   administered this office with justice and mildness, enjoying universal
   esteem.

   The episcopal chair of Milan, the second capital of Italy, and
   frequently the residence of the emperors, was at that time occupied by
   the Cappadocian, Auxentius, the head of the Arian party in the West.
   Soon after the arrival of Ambrose, Auxentius died. A division then
   arose among the people in the choice of a successor, and a dangerous
   riot threatened. The governor considered it his duty to allay the
   storm. But while he was yet speaking to the people, the voice of a
   child suddenly rang out: "Let Ambrose be bishop!" It seemed a voice of
   God, and Arians and Catholics cried, Amen.

   Ambrose was at that time a catechumen, and therefore not even baptized.
   He was terrified, and seized all possible, and even most eccentric,
   means to escape the responsible office. He was obliged to submit, was
   baptized, and eight days afterwards, in 374, was consecrated bishop of
   Milan. His friend, Basil the Great of Caesarea, was delighted that God
   had chosen such a man to so important a post, who counted noble birth,
   wealth, and eloquence loss, that he might win Christ.

   From this time forward Ambrose lived wholly for the church, and became
   one of the greatest bishops of ancient Christendom, full of Roman
   dignity, energy, and administrative wisdom, and of the unction of the
   Holy Ghost. He began his work with the sale of his great estates and of
   his gold and silver for the benefit of the poor; reserving an allowance
   for his pious sister Marcella or Marcellina, who in early youth had
   taken the vow of virginity. With voluntary poverty he associated the
   strictest regimen of the ascetic spirit of his time; accepted no
   invitations to banquets; took dinner only on Sunday, Saturday, and the
   festivals of celebrated martyrs; devoted the greater part of the night
   to prayer, to the hitherto necessarily neglected study of the
   Scriptures and the Greek fathers, and to theological writing; preached
   every Sunday, and often in the week; was accessible to all, most
   accessible to the poor and needy; and administered his spiritual
   oversight, particularly his instruction of catechumens, with the
   greatest fidelity.

   The Arians he vigorously opposed by word and act, and contributed to
   the victory of the Nicene faith in the West. In this work he behaved
   himself towards the Arian empress Justina with rare boldness, dignity,
   and consistency, in the heroic spirit of an Athanasius. The court
   demanded the cession of a catholic church for the use of the Arians,
   and claimed for them equal rights with the orthodox. But Ambrose
   asserted the entire independence of the church towards the state, and
   by perseverance came off victorious in the end. It was his maxim, that
   the emperor is in the church, but not over the church, and therefore
   has no right to the church buildings.

   He did not meddle in secular matters, nor ask favor of the magistracy,
   except when he could put in a word of intercession for the unfortunate
   and for persons condemned to death in those despotic times. This
   enabled him to act the more independently in his spiritual office, as a
   real prince of the church, fearless even of the emperor himself. Thus
   he declared to the usurper Maximus, who desired church fellowship, that
   he would never admit him, unless he should do sincere penance for the
   murder of the emperor Gratian.

   When the Roman prefect, Symmachus, the noblest and most eloquent
   advocate of the decaying heathenism of his time, implored the emperor
   Valentinian, in an apology for the altar of Victory which stood in the
   hall of the Roman senate, to tolerate the worship and the sanctuaries
   of the ancient gods, Ambrose met him with an admirable reply, and
   prevented the granting of his request.

   The most imposing appearance of our bishop against the temporal power
   was in his dealing with Theodosius, when this truly great, but
   passionate and despotic, emperor, enraged at Thessalonica for a riot,
   had caused many thousand innocent persons to be put to death with the
   guilty, and Ambrose, interesting himself for the unfortunate, like a
   Nathan with David, demanded repentance of the emperor, and refused him
   the holy communion. "How wilt thou," said he to him in the vestibule of
   the church, "how wilt thou lift up in prayer the hands still dripping
   with the blood of the murdered? How wilt thou receive with such hands
   the most holy body of the Lord? How wilt thou bring to thy mouth his
   precious blood? Get thee away, and dare not to heap crime upon crime."
   When Theodosius appealed to David's murder and adultery, the bishop
   answered: "Well, if thou hast imitated David in sin, imitate him also
   in repentance." [2076] The emperor actually submitted to ecclesiastical
   discipline, made public confession of his sin, and did not receive
   absolution until he had issued a law that the sentence of death should
   never be executed till thirty days after it was pronounced. [2077]

   From this time the relation between Ambrose and Theodosius continued
   undisturbed, and the emperor is reported to have said afterwards with
   reference to the bishop, that he had recently found the first man who
   told him the truth, and that he knew only one man who was worthy to be
   bishop. He died in the arms of Ambrose at Milan in 395. The bishop
   delivered his funeral oration in which he tells, to his honor, that on
   his dying bed he was more concerned for the condition of the church
   than for himself, and says to the soldiers: "The faith of Theodosius
   was your victory; let your truth and faith be the strength of his sons.
   Where unbelief is, there is blindness, but where fidelity is, there is
   the host of angels."

   Two years after this, Ambrose himself was fatally sick. All Milan was
   in terror. When he was urged to pray God for a lengthening of his life,
   he answered: "I have so lived among you that I cannot be ashamed to
   live longer; but neither do I fear to die; for we have a good Lord."
   During his sickness he had miraculous intimations and heard heavenly
   voices, and he himself related that Christ appeared to him smiling. His
   notary and biographer, the deacon Paulinus, who adorns his life
   throughout with miraculous incidents, tells us: [2078] "Not long before
   his death, while he was dictating to me his exposition of the
   Forty-third Psalm, I saw upon his head a flame in the form of a small
   shield; hereupon his face became white as snow, and not till some time
   after did it return to its natural color." In the night of Good Friday,
   on Saturday, the 4th of April, 397, he died, at the age of fifty-seven
   years, having first spent several hours, with his hands crossed, in
   uninterrupted prayer. Even Jews and pagans lamented his death. On the
   night of Easter following many were baptized in the church where his
   body was exposed Not a few of the newly baptized children saw him
   seated in the episcopal chair with a shining star upon his head. Even
   after his death he wrought miracles in many places, in proof of which
   Paulinus gives his own experience, credible persons, and documents.

   Ambrose, like Cyprian before him, and Leo I. after him, was greatest in
   administration. As bishop he towered above the contemporary popes. As a
   theologian and author he is only a star of the second magnitude among
   the church fathers, yielding by far to Jerome and Augustine. We have
   from this distinguished prelate several exegetical, doctrinal, and
   ascetic works, besides homilies, orations, and letters. In exegesis he
   adopts the allegorical method entire, and yields little substantial
   information. The most important among his exegetical works are his
   homilies on the history of creation (Hexaëmeron, written 389), an
   Exposition of twenty-one Psalms (390-397), and a Commentary on the
   Gospel of Luke (386). [2079] The Commentary on the Pauline Epistles
   (Ambrosiaster so called or Pseudo-Ambrosius) which found its way among
   his works, is of uncertain authorship, perhaps the work of the Roman
   deacon Hilary under pope Damasus, and resembles in many respects the
   commentaries of Pelagius. Among his doctrinal writings his five books
   On Faith, three On the Holy Ghost, and six On the Sacraments
   (catechetical sermons on baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist) are
   worthy of mention. Among his ethical writings the work On Duties is the
   most important. It resembles in form the well-known work of Cicero on
   the same subject, and reproduces it in a Christian spirit. It is a
   collection of rules of living for the clergy, and is the first attempt
   at a Christian doctrine of morals, though without systematic method.
   [2080] Besides this he composed several ascetic essays: Three books on
   Virgins; On Virginity; On the Institution of the Virgin; On Exhortation
   to Virginity; On the Fall of a Consecrated Virgin, &c., which
   contributed much to the spread of celibacy and monastic piety. Of his
   ninety-one Epistles several are of considerable historical interest.

   In his exegesis and in his theology, especially in the doctrine of the
   incarnation and the Trinity, Ambrose is entirely dependent on the Greek
   fathers; most on Basil, whose Hexaëmeron he almost slavishly copied. In
   anthropology he forms the transition from the Oriental doctrine to the
   system of Augustine, whose teacher and forerunner he was. He is most
   peculiar in his ethics, which he has set forth in his three books De
   Officiis. As a pulpit orator he possessed great dignity, force, and
   unction, and made a deep impression on Augustine, to whose conversion
   he contributed a considerable share. Many mothers forbade their
   daughters to hear him lest he should induce them to lead a life of
   celibacy.

   Ambrose has also a very important place in the history of worship, and
   did immortal service for the music and poetry of the church, as in a
   former section we have seen. [2081] Here again, as in theology and
   exegesis, he brought over the treasures of the Greek church into the
   Latin. The church of Milan uses to this day a peculiar liturgy which is
   called after him the ritus Ambrosianus.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2076] "Qui sequutus es errantem, sequere corrigentem" Paulinus, Vita
   Ambr. c. 24.

   [2077] Paulinus, l. c. c. 24: "Quod ubi audivit clementissimus
   imperator, ita suscepit, ut publicam poenitentiam non abhorreret," &c.
   Ambrosehimself says in his funeral oration on Theodosius: "Stravit
   omne, quo utebatur insigne regium, deflevit in ecclesia publice
   peccatum suum, neque ullus postea dies fuit, quo non illum doleret
   errorem." The main fact is beyond doubt; but the details are not all
   reliable, and may have been exaggerated for hierarchical ends.

   [2078] Vita Ambr. c. 42.

   [2079] The exegetical works are in tom. i. of the Bened. ed., excepting
   Ambrosiaster, which is in the Appendix to tom. ii. Jeromehad a
   contemptuous opinion of his exegetical writings. In the preface to his
   translation of the thirty-nine Homilies of Origen on Luke, he compares
   the superficial and meagre Commentary of Ambroseon Luke to the croaking
   of a raven which makes sport of the colors of all other birds, and yet
   is itself dark all over (totus ipse tenebrosus). Against this attack
   Rufinus felt it his duty to defend Ambrose, "qui non solum
   Mediolanensis ecclesiae, verum etiam omnium ecclesiarum columna quaedam
   et turris inexpugnabilis fuit" (Invect. ii. adv. Hieron.). In his
   Catalogus vir. illustr. c. 124, Jeromedisposes of Ambrosewith the
   following frosty and equivocal notice: "Ambrosius Mediolanensis
   episcopus, usque in presentem diem scribit, de quo, quia superest, meum
   judicium subtraham, ne in alterutram partem aut adulatio in me
   reprehendatur, aut veritas." In his Epistles, however, he occasionally
   makes favorable allusion to his ascetic writings which fell in with his
   own taste. Augustine, from a sense of gratitude to his spiritual
   father, always mentions his name with respect. The passages of
   Augustineon Ambroseare collected in the Selecta veterum testimonia at
   the beginning of the first tome of the Bened. edition. But the
   unfavorable notice of Jeromequoted above is omitted there.

   [2080] De officiis ministrorum in three books (in the Bened. ed. tom.
   ii. f. 1-142). Comp. F. Hassler: Ueber das Verhältniss der heidnischen
   und christlichen Ethik auf Grund einer Vergleichung des
   ciceronianischen Buches De officiis mit dem gleichnamigen des heiligen
   Ambrosius, München, 1866.

   [2081] Paulinus, in Vita Ambr. c. 13, relates: "Hoc in tempore primum
   antiphonae hymni ac vigiliae in ecclesia Mediolanensi celebrari
   coeperunt. Cuius celebritatis devotio usque in hodiernum diem non solum
   in eadem ecclesia, verum per omnes pene occidentis provincias manet."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 176. Jerome as a Divine and Scholar.

   Comp. the Literature at § 41; and especially the excellent monograph
   (which has since reached us) of Prof. Otto Zöckler: Hieronymus. Sein
   Leben und Wirken aus seinen Schriften dargestellt. Gotha, 1865.

   Having already sketched the life and character of Jerome (born about
   340, died in 419) in connection with the history of monasticism, we
   limit ourselves here to his theological and literary labors, in which
   he did his chief service to the church, and has gained the greatest
   credit to himself.

   Jerome is the most learned, the most eloquent, and the most interesting
   author among the Latin fathers. He had by nature a burning thirst for
   knowledge, [2082] and continued unweariedly teaching, and learning, and
   writing, to the end of a very long life. [2083] His was one of those
   intellectual natures, to which reading and study are as indispensable
   as daily bread. He could not live without books. He accordingly
   collected, by great sacrifices, a library for that time very
   considerable and costly, which accompanied him on his journeys. [2084]
   He further availed himself of the oral instruction of great church
   teachers, like Apollinaris the Elder in Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen in
   Constantinople, and Didymus of Alexandria, and was not ashamed to
   become an inquiring pupil in his mature age. His principle in studying
   was, in his own words: "To read the ancients, to test everything, to
   hold fast the good, and never to depart from the catholic faith."
   [2085]

   Besides the passion for knowledge, which is the mother of learning, he
   possessed a remarkable memory, a keen understanding, quick and sound
   judgment, an ardent temperament, a lively imagination, sparkling wit,
   and brilliant power of expression. He was a master in all the arts and
   artifices of rhetoric, and dialectics. He, far more than Lactantius,
   deserves the name of the Christian Cicero, though he is inferior to
   Lactantius in classic purity, and was not free from the faulty taste,
   of his time. Tertullian had, indeed, long before applied the Roman
   language as the organ of Christian theology; Cyprian, Lactantius,
   Hilary, and Ambrose, had gone further on the same path; and Augustine
   has enriched the Christian literature with a greater number of pregnant
   sentences than all the other fathers together. Nevertheless Jerome is
   the chief former of the Latin church language, for which his Vulgate
   did a decisive and standard service similar to that of Luther's
   translation of the Bible for German literature, and that of the
   authorized English Protestant version for English. [2086]

   His scholarship embraced the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages and
   literature; while even Augustine had but imperfect knowledge of the
   Greek, and none at all of the Hebrew. Jerome was familiar with the
   Latin classics, especially with Cicero, Virgil, and Horace; [2087] and
   even after his famous anti-Ciceronian vision (which transformed him
   from a more or less secular scholar into a Christian ascetic and
   hermit) he could not entirely cease to read over the favorite authors
   of his youth, or at least to quote them from his faithful memory; thus
   subjecting himself to the charge of inconsistency, and even of perjury,
   from Rufinus. [2088] Equally accurate was his knowledge of the
   literature of the church. Of the Latin fathers he particularly admired
   Tertullian for his powerful genius and vigorous style, though he could
   not forgive him his Montanism; after him Cyprian, Lactantius, Hilary,
   and Ambrose. In the Greek classics he was less at home; yet he shows
   acquaintance with Hesiod, Sophocles, Herodotus, Demosthenes, Aristotle,
   Theophrastus, and Galen. But in the Greek fathers he was well read,
   especially in Origen, Eusebius, Didymus, and Gregory Nazianzen; less in
   Irenaeus, Athanasius, Basil, and other doctrinal writers.

   The Hebrew he learned with great labor in his mature years; first from
   a converted but anonymous Jew, during his five years' ascetic seclusion
   in the Syrian desert of Chalcis (374-379); afterwards in Bethlehem
   (about 385) from the Palestinian Rabbi Bar-Anina, who, through fear of
   the Jews, visited him by night. [2089] This exposed him to the foolish
   rumor among bigoted opponents, that he preferred Judaism to
   Christianity, and betrayed Christ in preference to the new "Barabbas."
   [2090] He afterwards, in translating the Old Testament, brought other
   Jewish scholars to his aid, who cost him dear. He also inspired several
   of his admiring female pupils, like St. Paula and her daughter
   Eustochium, with enthusiasm for the study of the sacred language of the
   old covenant, and brought them on so far that they could sing with him
   the Hebrew Psalms in praise of the Lord. He lamented the injurious
   influence of these studies on his style, since "the rattling sound of
   the Hebrew soiled all the elegance and beauty of Latin speech." [2091]
   Yet, on the other hand, he was by the same means preserved from flying
   off into hollow and turgid ornamentations, from which his earlier
   writings, such as his letters to Heliodorus and Innocentius, are not
   altogether free. Though his knowledge of Hebrew was defective, it was
   much greater than that of Origen, Epiphanius, and Ephraem Syrus, the
   only other fathers besides himself who understood Hebrew at all; and it
   is the more noticeable, when we consider the want of grammatical and
   lexicographical helps and of the Masoretic punctuation. [2092]

   Jerome, who unfortunately was not free from vanity, prided himself not
   a little upon his learning, and boasted against his opponent Rufinus,
   that he was "a philosopher, a rhetorician, a grammarian, a
   dialectician, a Hebrew, a Greek, a Latin, three-tongued," that is,
   master of the three principal languages of the then civilized world.
   [2093]

   All these manifold and rare gifts and attainments made him an extremely
   influential and useful teacher of the church; for he brought them all
   into the service of an earnest and energetic, though monkishly
   eccentric piety. They gave him superior access to the sense of the Holy
   Scriptures, which continued to be his daily study to extreme old age,
   and stood far higher in his esteem than all the classics. His writings
   are imbued with Bible knowledge, and strewn with Bible quotations.

   But with all this he was not free from faults as glaring as his virtues
   are shining, which disturb our due esteem and admiration. He lacked
   depth of mind and character, delicate sense of truth, and firm, strong
   convictions. He allowed himself inconsistencies of every kind,
   especially in his treatment of Origen, and, through solicitude for his
   own reputation for orthodoxy, he was unjust to that great teacher, to
   whom he owed so much. He was very impulsive in temperament, and too
   much followed momentary, changing impressions. Many of his works were
   thrown off with great haste and little consideration. He was by nature
   an extremely vain, ambitious, and passionate man, and he never
   succeeded in fully overcoming these evil forces. He could not bear
   censure. Even his later polemic writings are full of envy, hatred, and
   anger. In his correspondence with Augustine, with all assurances of
   respect, he everywhere gives that father to feel his own superiority as
   a comprehensive scholar, and in one place tells him that he never had
   taken the trouble to read his writings, excepting his Soliloquies and
   "some commentaries on the Psalms." He indulged in rhetorical
   exaggerations and unjust inferences, which violated the laws of truth
   and honesty; and he supported himself in this, with a characteristic
   reference to the sophist Gorgias, by the equivocal distinction between
   the gymnastic or polemic style and the didactic. [2094] From his master
   Cicero he had also learned the vicious rhetorical arts of bombast,
   declamatory fiction, and applause-seeking effects, which are unworthy
   of a Christian theologian, and which invite the reproach of the divine
   judge in that vision: "Thou liest! thou art a Ciceronian, not a
   Christian; for where thy treasure is, there thy heart is also."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2082] As he himself says, Ep. 84, c. 3 (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, tom. i.
   523): "Dum essem juvenis, miro discendi ferebar ardore, nee juxta
   quorundam praesumptionem ipse me docui."

   [2083] Sulpicius Severus, who describes from his own observation the
   learned seclusion of the aged Jeromeat Bethlehem, where, however, he
   was much interrupted and stimulated by the visits of Christians from
   all parts of the world, says of him, in Dial. i. 4: "Totus semper in
   lectione, totus in libris est; non die, non nocte requiescit; aut legit
   aliquid semper, aut scribit, " &c.

   [2084] He confesses that the purchase of the numerous works of Origen
   had exhausted his purse, Ep. 84, c. 3 (tom. i. 525): "Legi, inquam,
   legi Origenem, et, si in legendo crimen est, fateor; et nostrum
   marsupium Alexandrinae chartae evacuarunt." When he saw, and was
   permitted to use, the library of Pamphiltus in Caesarea, with all the
   works of Origen, he thought he possessed more than the riches of
   Croesus (De viris illustr. c. 75).

   [2085] "Meum propositum est, antiquos legere, probare singula, retinere
   quae bona sunt, et a fide catholica numquam recedere."

   [2086] Ozanam(Histoire de la civilisationchrét. au 5. siècle, ii. 100)
   calls Jerome, "Le maître de la prose chrétienne pour tous lea siècles
   suivants." ZöcklerSays (l. a. p. 323): "As Cicero raised the language
   of his time to the classic grade, and cast it for all times in a model
   form, so, of the Western church fathers, Jeromewas the one to make the
   Latin language Christian, and Christian theology Latin." Erasmus placed
   him as an author in several respects even above Cicero.

   [2087] Virgil is quoted in the Letters of Jeromesome fifty times, in
   his other works much more frequently; Horace, in the Letters, some
   twenty times; of the prose writers Cicero more than all, next to him
   Varro, Sallust, Quintilian, Seneca, Suetonius, and Pliny. Virgil,
   however, is viewed by Jerome, and by Augustine, who likewise admired
   him greatly, simply as a great poet, and not, as he afterwards came to
   be considered in the Latin church, especially through the influence of
   Dante's Divina Commedia, as a divine and prophet of heathenism.

   [2088] Comp. § 41 above, and Zöcklerl.c. p. 45 ff., 156, and 325. It is
   certain that Jerome, after that dream of about 374, almost entirely
   suspended and even abhorred the study of the classics for fifteen years
   (comp. the Preface to his Commentary on the Galatians, written a. 388,
   Opera, tom. vii. 486, ed. Vallarsi), but that afterwards at Bethlehem
   he instructed the monks in grammaticis et humanioribus (Rufinus, Apol.
   ii. 8), and inserted quotations from the classics in his later
   writings, although mostly as reminiscences of his former reading
   ("quasi antiqui per nebulam somnii recordamur, " as he says in the
   preface above referred to), and with the obvious intent of making
   profane literature subservient to the Bible (comp. his Epistola xxi. ad
   Damasum, cap. 13). Both Jeromeand Rufinus permitted themselves to be
   carried by passion to exaggerated assertions at the expense of truth.

   [2089] Ep. 84 ad Pammach. et Ocean. c. 3 (tom. i. 524, ed. Vallarsi):
   "Veni rursum Jerosolymam et Bethlehem. Quo labore, quo pretio Baraninam
   nocturnum babui praeceptorem! Timebat enim Judaeos, et mihi alterum
   exhibebat Nicodemum."

   [2090] So Rufinus wrested the name, with reference to Mark xv. 7. Comp.
   Rufinus, Apol. or Invect. ii. 12, and the answer of Jerometo these
   calumnies, in the Apol. adv. libros Ruf. l. i. c. 13 (tom. ii. 469).

   [2091] In the Preface to his Commentary on the Epistle to the
   Galatians: "Omnem sermonis elegantiam et Latini eloquii venustatem
   stridor Hebraicae lectionis sordidavit." This, however, is to be
   understood cum grano salis.

   [2092] That there were at that time as yet no vowel-points or other
   diacritical signs in writing Hebrew words, has been proved against
   Buxtorf by L. Capellus, Morinus, and Clericus, and among modem Oriental
   scholars, especially by Hupfeld (Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 549
   ff.). Comp. Zöckler, l.c. p. 345 f.

   [2093] Apol adv. Ruf. lib. iii. c. 6 (tom. ii. 537). His claim to be a
   philosopher may be questioned. In the same place he calls "papa"
   Epiphanius pentaglottos, a man of five tongues, because besides the
   three chief languages he also understood the Syriac and the Egyptian or
   Coptic. But his knowledge of the languages was far inferior to that of
   Jerome. Augustineregarded Jeromeas the most learned man among all
   mortals."Quod Hieronymus nescivit," he said, "nullus mortalium unquam
   scivit." Comp. also the enthusiastic praise of Erasmus, quoted § 41, p.
   206, who placed him far above all the fathers; while Luther
   acknowledged his learning indeed, but could not bear his monastic
   spirit, and judged him harshly and unjustly. Comp. M. Lutheri
   Colloquia, ed. H. Bindseil, 1863, tom. iii. 135, 149, 193; ii. 340,
   349, 357.

   [2094] Between gumnastikosscribere and dogmatikosscribere. Ep. 48 ad
   Pammachium pro libris contra Jovinianum, cap. 13.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 177. The Works of Jerome.

   The writings of Jerome, which fill eleven folios in the edition of
   Vallarsi, may be divided into exegetical, historical, polemic
   doctrinal, and polemic ethical works, and epistles. [2095]

   I. The exegetical works stand at the head.

   Among these the Vulgata, [2096] or Latin version of the whole Bible,
   Old Testament and New, is by far the most important and valuable, and
   constitutes alone an immortal service. [2097]

   Above all his contemporaries, and above all his successors down to the
   sixteenth century, Jerome, by his linguistic knowledge, his Oriental
   travel, and his entire culture, was best fitted, and, in fact, the only
   man, to undertake and successfully execute so gigantic a task, and a
   task which just then, with the approaching separation of East and West,
   and the decay of the knowledge of the original languages of the Bible
   in Latin Christendom, was of the highest necessity. Here, its so often
   in history, we plainly discern the hand of divine Providence. Jerome
   began the work during his second residence in Rome (382-385), at the
   suggestion of pope Damasus, who deserves much more credit for that
   suggestion than for his hymns. He at first intended only a revision of
   the Itala, the old Latin version of the Bible which came down from the
   second century, and the text of which had fallen into inextricable
   confusion through the negligence of transcribers and the caprice of
   correctors. [2098] He finished the translation at Bethlehem, in the
   year 405, after twenty years of toil. He translated first the Gospels,
   then the rest of the New Testament, next the Psalter (which he wrought
   over twice, in Rome and in Bethlehem [2099] ), and then, in irregular
   succession, the historical, prophetic, and poetical books, and in part
   the Apocrypha, which, however, he placed decidedly below the canonical
   books. By this "labor pius, sed periculosa praesumtio," as he called
   it, he subjected himself to all kinds of enmity from ignorance and
   blind aversion to change, and was abused as a disturber of the peace
   and falsifier of the Scripture; [2100] but from other sources he
   received much encouragement. The New Testament and the Psalter were
   circulated and used in the church long before the completion of the
   whole. Augustine, for example, was using the New Testament of Jerome,
   and urged him strongly to translate the Old Testament, but to translate
   it from the Septuagint. [2101] Gradually the whole version made its way
   on its own merits, without authoritative enforcement, and was used in
   the West, at first together with the Itala, and after about the ninth
   century alone.

   The Vulgate takes the first place among the Bible-versions of the
   ancient church. It exerted the same influence upon Latin Christendom as
   the Septuagint upon Greek, and it is directly or indirectly the mother
   of most of the earlier versions in the European vernaculars. [2102] It
   is made immediately from the original languages, though with the use of
   all accessible helps, and is as much superior to the Itala as Luther's
   Bible to the older German versions. From the present stage of biblical
   philology and exegesis the Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with
   innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary,
   dealing, in particulars; [2103] but notwithstanding these, it deserves,
   as a whole, the highest praise for the boldness with which it went back
   from the half-deified Septuagint directly to the original Hebrew; for
   its union of fidelity and freedom; and for the dignity, clearness, and
   gracefulness of its style. Accordingly, after the extinction of the
   knowledge of Greek, it very naturally became the clerical Bible of
   Western Christendom, and so continued to be, till the genius of the
   Reformation in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, and England, returning to
   the original text, and still further penetrating the spirit of the
   Scriptures, though with the continual help of the Vulgate, produced a
   number of popular Bibles, which were the same to the evangelical laity
   that the Vulgate had been for many centuries to the Catholic clergy.
   This high place the Vulgate holds even to this day in the Roman church,
   where it is unwarrantably and perniciously placed on an equality with
   the original. [2104]

   The Commentaries of Jerome cover Genesis, the Major and Minor Prophets,
   Ecclesiastes, Job, some of the Psalms, [2105] the Gospel of Matthew,
   and the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, and Philemon.
   [2106] Besides these he translated the Homilies of Origen on Jeremiah
   and Ezekiel, on the Gospel of Luke, and on the Song of Solomon. Of the
   last he says: "While Origen in his other writings has surpassed all
   others, on the Song of Solomon he has surpassed himself." [2107]

   His best exegetical labors are those on the Prophets (Particularly his
   Isaiah, written a.d. 408-410; his Ezekiel, a.d. 410-415; and his
   Jeremiah to chap. xxxii., interrupted by his death), and those on the
   Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus, (written in 388),
   together with his critical Questions (or investigations) on Genesis.
   But they are not uniformly carried out; many parts are very
   indifferent, others thrown off with unconscionable carelessness in
   reliance on his genius and his reading, or dictated to an amanuensis as
   they came into his head. [2108] He not seldom surprises by clear,
   natural, and conclusive expositions, while just on the difficult
   passages he wavers, or confines himself to adducing Jewish traditions
   and the exegetical opinions of the earlier fathers, especially of
   Origen, Eusebius, Apollinaris, and Didymus, leaving the reader to judge
   and to choose. His scholarly industry, taste, and skill, however,
   always afford a certain compensation for the defect of method and
   consistency, so that his Commentaries are, after all, the most
   instructive we have from the Latin church of that day, not excepting
   even those of Augustine, which otherwise greatly surpass them in
   theological depth and spiritual unction. He justly observes in the
   Preface to his Commentary on Isaiah: "He who does not know the
   Scriptures, does not know the power and wisdom of God; ignorance of the
   Bible is ignorance of Christ." [2109]

   Jerome had the natural talent and the acquired knowledge, to make him
   the father of grammatico-historical interpretation, upon which all
   sound study of the Scriptures must proceed. He very rightly felt that
   the expositor must not put his own fancies into the word of God, but
   draw out the meaning of that word, and he sometimes finds fault with
   Origen and the allegorical method for roaming in the wide fields of
   imagination, and giving out the writer's own thought and fancy for the
   hidden Wisdom of the Scriptures and the church. [2110] In this
   healthful exegetical spirit he excelled all the fathers, except
   Chrysostom and Theodoret. In the Latin church no others, except the
   heretical Pelagius (whose short exposition of the Epistles of Paul is
   incorporated in the works of Jerome), and the unknown Ambrosiaster
   (whose commentary has found its way among the works of Ambrose),
   thought like him. But he was far from being consistent; he committed
   the very fault he censures in Eusebius, who in the superscription of
   his Commentary on Isaiah promised a historical exposition, but,
   forgetting the promise, fell into the fashion of Origen. Though he
   often makes very bold utterances, such as that on the original identity
   of presbyter and bishop, [2111] and even shows traces of a loose view
   of inspiration, [2112] yet he had not the courage, and was too
   scrupulously concerned for his orthodoxy, to break with the traditional
   exegesis. He could not resist the impulse to indulge, after giving the
   historical sense, in fantastic allegorizing, or, as he expresses
   himself, "to spread the sails of the spiritual understanding." [2113]

   He distinguishes in most cases a double sense of the Scriptures: the
   literal and the spiritual, or the historical and the allegorical;
   sometimes, with Origen and the Alexandrians, a triple sense: the
   historical, the tropological (moral), and the pneumatical (mystical).

   The word of God does unquestionably carry in its letter a living and
   life-giving spirit; and is capable of endless application to all times
   and circumstances; and here lies the truth in the allegorical method of
   the ancient church. But the spiritual sense must be derived with tender
   conscientiousness and self-command from the natural, literal meaning,
   not brought from without, as another sense beside, or above, or against
   the literal.

   Jerome goes sometimes as far as Origen in the unscrupulous twisting of
   the letter and the history, and adopts his mischievous principle of
   entirely rejecting the literal sense whenever it may seem ludicrous or
   unworthy. For instance: By the Shunamite damsel, the concubine of the
   aged king David, he understands (imitating Origen's allegorical
   obliteration of the double crime against Uriah and Bathsheba) the
   ever-virgin Wisdom of God, so extolled by Solomon; [2114] and the
   earnest controversy between Paul and Peter he alters into a sham fight
   for the instruction of the Antiochian Christians who were present; thus
   making out of it a deceitful accommodation, over which Augustine (who
   took just offence at such patrocinium mendacii) drew him into an
   epistolary controversy characteristic of the two men." [2115]

   It is remarkable that Augustine and Jerome, in the two exegetical
   questions, on which they corresponded, interchanged sides, and each
   took the other's point of view. In the dispute on the occurrence in
   Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-14), Augustine represented the principle of
   evangelical freedom and love of truth, Jerome the principle of
   traditional committal to dogma and an equivocal theory of
   accommodation; while in their dispute on the authority of the
   Septuagint Jerome held to true progress, Augustine to retrogression and
   false traditionalism. And each afterwards saw his error, and at least
   partially gave it up.

   In the exposition of the Prophets, Jerome sees too many allusions to
   the heretics of his time (as Luther finds everywhere allusions to the
   Papists, fanatics, and sectarians); and, on the other hand, with the
   zeal he inherited from Origen against all chiliasm, he finds far too
   little reference to the end of, all things in the second coming of our
   Lord. He limits, for example, even the eschatological discourse of
   Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and Paul's prophecy of
   the man of sin in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, to the
   destruction of Jerusalem.

   Among the exegetical works in the wider sense belongs the book On the
   Interpretation of the Hebrew Names, an etymological lexicon of the
   proper names of the Old and New Testaments, useful for its time, but in
   many respects defective, and now worthless; [2116] and a free
   translation of the Onomasticon of Eusebius, a sort of biblical topology
   in alphabetical order, still valuable to antiquarian scholarship.
   [2117]

   II. The historical works, some of which we have already elsewhere
   touched, are important to the history of the fathers and the saints to
   Christian literature, and to the history of morals.

   First among them is a free Latin reproduction and continuation of the
   Greek Chronicle of Eusebius; i.e., chronological tables of the most
   important events of the history of the world and the church to the year
   379. [2118] Jerome dictated this work quite fugitively during his
   residence with Gregory Nazianzen in Constantinople (a.d. 380). In spite
   of its many errors, it formed a very useful and meritorious
   contribution to Latin literature, and a principal source of the scanty
   historical information of Western Christendom throughout the middle
   age. Prosper Aquitanus, a friend of Augustine and defender of the
   doctrines of free grace against the Semi-Pelagians in Gaul, continued
   the Chronicle to the year 449; later authors brought it down to the
   middle of the sixth century.

   More original is the Catalogue of Illustrious Authors, [2119] which
   Jerome composed in the tenth year of Theodosius (a.d. 392 and 393),
   [2120] at the request of his friend, an officer, Dexter. It is the
   pioneer in the history of theological literature, and gives, in one
   hundred and thirty-five chapters, short biographical notices of as many
   ecclesiastical writers, from the apostles to Jerome himself, with
   accounts of their most important works. It was partly designed to
   refute the charge of ignorance, which Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and
   other pagans, made against the Christians. Jerome, at that time, was
   not yet so violent a heretic-hater, and was quite fair and liberal in
   his estimate of such men as Origen and Eusebius. [2121] But many of his
   sketches are too short and meagre; even those, for example, of so
   important men as Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of
   Nyssa, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and Chrysostom ( 407). [2122] His junior
   cotemporary, Augustine, who had at that time already written several
   philosophical, exegetical, and polemic works, he entirely omits.

   The Catalogue was afterwards continued in the same spirit by the
   Semi-Pelagian Gennadius of Marseilles, by Isidore of Seville, by
   Ildefonsus, and by others, into the middle age.

   Jerome wrote also biographies of celebrated hermits, Paul of Thebes
   (a.d. 375), Hilarion, and the imprisoned Malchus (a.d. 390), in very
   graceful and entertaining style, but with many fabulous and
   superstitious accompaniments, and with extravagant veneration of the
   monastic life, which he aimed by these writings to promote. [2123] They
   were read at that time as eagerly as novels. These biographies, and
   several necrological letters in honor of deceased friends, such as
   Nepotian, Lucinius, Lea, Blasilla, Paulina, Paula, and Marcella are
   masterpieces of rhetorical ascetic hagiography. They introduce the
   legend ary literature of the middle age, with its indiscriminate
   mixture of history and fable, and its sacrifice of historical truth to
   popular edification.

   III. Of the polemic doctrinal and ethical works [2124] some relate to
   the Arian controversies, some to the Origenistic, some to the Pelagian.
   In the first class belongs the Dialogue against the schismatic
   Luciferians, [2125] which Jerome wrote during his desert life in Syria
   (a.d. 379) on the occasion of the Meletian schism in Antioch; also his
   translation of the work of Didymus On the Holy Ghost, begun in Rome and
   finished in Bethlehem. His book Against Bishop John of Jerusalem (a.d.
   399), and his Apology to his former friend Rufinus, in three books
   (a.d. 402-403), are directed against Origenism. [2126] In the third
   class belongs the Dialogue against the Pelagians, in three books (a.d.
   415). Other polemic works, Against Helvidius (written in 383), Against
   Jovinian (a.d. 393), and Against Vigilantius (dictated rapidly in one
   night in 406), are partly doctrinal, partly ethical in their nature,
   and mainly devoted to the advocacy of the immaculate virginity of Mary,
   celibacy, vigils, relic-worship, and the monastic life.

   These controversial writings, the contents of which we have already
   noted in the proper place, do the author, on the whole, little credit,
   and stand in striking contrast with his fame as one of the principal
   saints of the Roman church. They show an accurate acquaintance with all
   the arts of an advocate and all the pugilism of a dialectician,
   together with boundless vehemence and fanatical zealotism, which
   scruple over no weapons of wit, mockery, irony, suspicion, and calumny,
   to annihilate opponents, and which pursue them even after their death.
   [2127] And their contents afford no sufficient compensation for these
   faults. For Jerome was not an original, profound, systematic, or
   consistent thinker, and therefore very little fitted for a didactic
   theologian. In the Arian controversy he would not enter into any
   discussion of the distinction between ousiaand hupostasis, and left
   this important question to the decision of the Roman bishop Damasus; in
   the Origenistic controversy he must, in his violent condemnation of all
   Origenists, contradict his own former view and veneration of Origen as
   the greatest teacher after the Apostles; and in the Pelagian
   controversy he was influenced chiefly by personal considerations, and
   drawn half way to Augustine's side; for while he was always convinced
   of the universality of sin, [2128] in reference to the freedom of the
   will and predestination he adopted synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views,
   and afterwards continued in the highest consideration among the
   Semi-Pelagians down to Erasmus. [2129]

   He is equally unsatisfactory as a moralist and practical divine. He had
   no connected system of moral doctrine, and did not penetrate to the
   basis and kernel of the Christian life, but moved in the outer circle
   of asceticism and casuistry. Following the spirit of his time, he found
   the essence of religion in monastic flight from the world and contempt
   of the natural ordinances of God, especially of marriage; and,
   completely reversing sound principles, he advocated even ascetic filth
   as an external mark of inward purity. [2130] Of marriage he had a very
   low conception, regarding it merely as a necessary evil for the
   increase of virgins. From the expression of Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 1: "It
   is good not to touch a woman," he draws the utterly unwarranted
   inference: "It is therefore bad to touch one; for the only opposite of
   good is bad;" and he interprets the woe of the Lord upon those that are
   with child and those that give suck (Matt. xxiv. 19), as a condemnation
   of pregnancy in general, and of the crying of little children, and of
   all the trouble and fruit of the married life. The disagreeable fact of
   the marriage of Peter he endeavors to weaken by the groundless
   assumption that the apostle forsook his wife when he forsook his net,
   and, besides, that "he must have washed away the stain of his married
   life by the blood of his martyrdom." [2131]

   In a letter, otherwise very beautiful and rich, to the young Nepotian,
   [2132] he gives this advice: "Let your lodgings be rarely or never
   visited by women. You must either ignore alike, or love alike, all the
   daughters and virgins of Christ. Nay, dwell not under the same roof
   with them, nor trust their former chastity; you cannot be holier than
   David, nor wiser than Solomon. Never forget that a woman drove the
   inhabitants of Paradise out of their possession. In sickness any
   brother, or your sister, or your mother, can minister to in the lack of
   such relatives, the church herself maintains many aged women, whom you
   can at the same time remunerate for their nursing with welcome alms. I
   know some who are well in the body indeed, but sick in mind. It is a
   dangerous service in any case, that is done to you by one whose face
   you often see. If in your official duty as a clergyman you must visit a
   widow or a maiden, never enter her house alone. Take with you only
   those whose company does you no shame; only some reader, or acolyth, or
   psalm-singer, whose ornament consists not in clothes, but in good
   morals, who does not crimp his hair with crisping pins, but shows
   chastity in his whole bearing. But privately or without witnesses,
   never put yourself in the presence of a woman."

   Such exhortations, however, were quite in the spirit of that age, and
   were in part founded in Jerome's own bitter experience in his youth,
   and in the thoroughly corrupt condition of social life in the sinking
   empire of Rome.

   While advocating these ascetic extravagancies Jerome does not neglect
   to chastise the clergy and the monks for their faults with the scourge
   of cutting satire. And his writings are everywhere strewn with the
   pearls of beautiful moral maxims and eloquent exhortations to contempt
   of the world and godly conduct. [2133]

   IV. The Epistles of Jerome, with all their defects are uncommonly
   instructive and interesting, and, in easy flow and elegance of diction,
   are not inferior to the letters of Cicero. Vallarsi has for the first
   time put them into chronological order in the first volume of his
   edition, and has made the former numbering of them (even that of the
   Benedictine edition) obsolete. He reckons in all a hundred and fifty,
   including several letters from cotemporaries, such as Epiphanius,
   Theophilus of Alexandria, Augustine, Damasus, Pammachius, and Rufinus;
   some of them written directly to Jerome, and some treating of matters
   in which he was interested. They are addressed to friends like the
   Roman bishop Damasus, the senator Pammachius, the bishop Paulinus of
   Nola, Theophilus of Alexandria, Evangelus, Rufinus, Heliodorus,
   Riparius, Nepotianus, Oceanus, Avitus, Rusticus, Gaudentius, and
   Augustine, and some to distinguished ascetic women and maidens like
   Paula, Eustochium, Marcella, Furia, Fabiola, and Demetrias. They treat
   of almost all questions of philosophy and practical religion, which
   then agitated the Christian world, and they faithfully reflect the
   virtues and the faults and the remarkable contrasts of Jerome and of
   his age.

   Orthodox in theology and Christology, Semi-Pelagian in anthropology,
   Romanizing in the doctrine of the church and tradition, anti-chiliastic
   in eschatology, legalistic and ascetic in ethics, a violent fighter of
   all heresies, a fanatical apologist of all monkish
   extravagancies,--Jerome was revered throughout the catholic middle age
   as the patron saint of Christian and ecclesiastical learning, and, next
   to Augustine, as maximus doctor ecclesiae; but by his enthusiastic love
   for the Holy Scriptures, his recourse to the original languages, his
   classic translation of the Bible, and his manifold exegetical merits,
   he also played materially into the hands of the Reformation, and as a
   scholar and an author still takes the first rank, and as an influential
   theologian the second (after Augustine), among the Latin fathers;
   while, as a moral character, he decidedly falls behind many others,
   like Hilary, Ambrose, and Leo I., and, even according to the standard
   of Roman asceticism, can only in a very limited sense be regarded as a
   saint. [2134]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2095] The Vallarsi edition, Verona, 1734-'42, and with improvements,
   Venet. 1766'72, is much more complete and accurate than the Benedictine
   or Maurine edition of Martianay and Pouget, in 5 vols. 1706, although
   this far surpassed the older editions of Erasmus, and Marianus
   Victorius. The edition of Migne, Paris (Petit-Montrouge), 1845-'46,
   also in 11 volumes (tom. xxii.-xxx. of the Patrologia Lat.),
   notwithstanding the boastful title, is only an uncritical reprint of
   the edition of Vallarsi with unessential changes in the order of
   arrangement; the Vitae Hieronymi and the Testimonia de Hieronymo being
   transferred from the eleventh to the first volume, which is more
   convenient. Vallarsi, a presbyter of Verona, was assisted in his work
   by Scipio Maffei, and others. I have mostly used his edition,
   especially in the Epistles.

   [2096] The name Vulgata, sc. editio, koine ekdosis, i. e., the received
   text of the Bible, was a customary designation of the Septuagint, as
   also of the Latin Itala (frequently so used in Jeromeand Augustine),
   sometimes used in the bad sense of a vulgar, corrupt text as distinct
   from the original. The council of Trent sanctioned the use of the term
   in the honorable sense for Jerome's version of the Bible. With the same
   right Luther's version might be called the German, King James' version
   the English Vulgate.

   [2097] This is now pretty generally acknowledged. We add a few of the
   most weighty testimonies. Luther, who bore a real aversion to Jeromeon
   account of his fanatical devotion to monkery, still, in view of the
   invaluable assistance he received from the Vulgate in his own similar
   work, does him the justice to say: "St. Jeromehas personally done more
   and greater in translation than any one man will imitate." Zöckler,
   l.c. p. 183, thinks: "The Vulgate is unquestionably the most important
   and most meritorious achievement of our author, the ripest fruit of his
   laborious studies, not only in the department of Hebrew, in which he
   leaves all other ecclesiastical authors of antiquity far behind, but
   also in that of Greek and of biblical criticism and exegesis in
   general, in which he excels at least all, even the greatest, of the
   Western fathers." O. F. Fritzsche(in Herzog's Encykl. vol. xvii. p.
   435): "The severe judgment respecting the labor of Jeromesoftened with
   time, and, in fact, so swung to the opposite, that he was regarded as
   preserved from error by the guidance of the Holy Ghost. This certainly
   cannot be admitted, for the defects are palpably many and various. Yet
   criticism must acknowledge that Jeromeperformed a truly important
   service for his age; that he first gave the Old Testament to the West,
   and in a measure also the New, in a substantially pure form; put a
   stop, provisionally, to the confusion of the Bible text; and as a
   translator gave, on the whole, the true sense. He very properly aimed
   to be interpres, not paraphrastes, but in the great dissimilarity
   between the Hebrew and Latin idiom, he encountered the danger of
   slavish literalness. This he has in general avoided, and has been able
   to keep a certain mean between too great strictness and too great
   freedom, so that the language, though everywhere showing the Hebrew
   tinge, would not at all offend, but rather favor, the reader of that
   day. Yet it may be said that Jeromecould have done still better. It was
   not that reverence, caution, restrained him; to avoid offence, he
   adhered as closely as possible to the current version, especially in
   the New Testament. He sometimes let false translations stand, when they
   seemed harmless (" quod non nocebat, mutare noluimus "), and probably
   followed popular usage in respect to phraseology; so that the style is
   not perfectly uniform. Finally, he did not always give himself due
   time, but worked rapidly. This is particularly true in the Apocrypha,
   of which, however, he had a very low estimate. Some parts he left
   entirely untouched, others he translated or revised very hastily."
   Comp. also the opinion of the English scholar, B. F. Westcott, in W.
   Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 1696 and 1714 f., who
   says among other things: "When every allowance has been made for the
   rudeness of the original Latin, and the haste of Jerome's revision, it
   can scarcely be denied that the Vulgate is not only the most venerable
   but also the most precious monument of Latin Christianity. For ten
   centuries it preserved in Western Europe a text of Holy Scripture far
   purer than that which was current in the Byzantine church; and at the
   revival of Greek learning, guided the way towards a revision of the
   late Greek text, in which the best biblical critics have followed the
   steps of Bentley, with ever-deepening conviction of the supreme
   importance of the coincidence of the earliest Greek and Latin
   authorities."

   [2098] Jeromesays of the Itala: "Tot sunt exemplaria paene quot
   codices, " and frequently complains of the "varietas" and "vitiositas"
   of the Codices Latini, which he charges partly upon the original
   translators, partly upon presumptuous revisers, partly upon negligent
   transcribers. Comp. especially his Praefat. in Evang. ad Damasum.

   [2099]  Both versions continued in use, the former as the Psalterium
   Romanum, the other as the Psalterium Gallicanum, like the two English
   versions of the Psalms in the worship of the Anglican church.

   [2100] Falsarius, sacrilegus, et corruptor Scripturae.

   [2101] Augustinefeared, from the displacement of the Septuagint, which
   he regarded as apostolically sanctioned, and as inspired, a division
   between the Greek and Latin church, but yielded afterwards, in part at
   least, to the correct view of Jerome, and rectified in his
   Retractations several false translations in his former works. Westcott,
   in his scholarly article on the Vulgate (in Smith's Dictionary of the
   Bible, iii. 702), makes the remark: "There are few more touching
   instances of humility than that of the young Augustinebending himself
   in entire submission before the contemptuous and impatient reproof of
   the veteran scholar."

   [2102] Excepting the Gothic version, which is older than Jerome, and
   the Slavonic, which comes down from Methodius and Cyril.

   [2103] It has been so censured long ago by Le Clere in his Quaestiones
   Hieronymianae,

   [2104] For particulars respecting the Vulgate, see H. Hody: De
   Bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon. 1705; Joh. Clericus: Quaestiones
   Hieronymianae, Amsterd. 1719 (who, provoked by the exaggerated praise
   of the Benedictine editor, Martianay, subjected the Vulgate to a sharp
   and penetrating though in part unjust criticism); Leander van Ess:
   Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, Tüb. 1824; the lengthy
   article Vulgata by O. F. Fritzschein Herzog's Theol. Encycl. vol. xvii.
   pp. 422-460; an article on the same subject by B. F. Westcottin W.
   Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1863, vol. iii. pp. 688-718; and
   Zöckler: Hieronymus, pp. 99 ff.; 183 ff.; 343 ff. The text of the
   Vulgate, in the course of time, has become as corrupt as the text of
   the Itala was at the time of Jerome, and it is as much in need of a
   critical revision from manuscript sources, as the textus receptus of
   the Greek Testament. The authorized editions of SixtusV. and
   ClementXIII. have not accomplished this task. Martianay, in the
   Benedictine edition of Jerome's work, did more valuable service towards
   an approximate restoration of the Vulgate in its original form from
   manuscript sources. Of late the learned Barnabite C. Vercellonehas
   commenced such a critical revision in Variae Lectiones Vulgatae Latin.
   Bibliorum editionis, tom. i. (Pentat.), Rome, 1860; tom. ii. Pars prior
   (to 1 Regg.), 1862. Westcott, in the article referred to, has made use
   of the chief results of this work, which may be said to create an epoch
   in the history of the Vulgate.

   [2105] His seven treatises on Psalms x.-xvi. (probably translated from
   Origen), and his brief annotations to all the Psalms (commentarioli)
   are lost, but the pseudo-hieronymianum breviarium in Psalmos, a poor
   compilation of later times (Opera, vii. 1-588), contains perhaps
   fragments of these.

   [2106] Opera, tom. iii. iv. v. vi. and vii. Jeromededicated his
   commentaries and other writings mostly to those high-born ladies of
   Rome whom he induced to embrace the ascetic mode of life, as Paula,
   Eustochium, Marcella, &c.h He received much encouragement from them in
   his labors;--such was the lively theological interest which prevailed
   in some female circles at the time. He was, however, censured on this
   account, and defended himself in the Preface to his Commentary on
   Zephaniah, tom. vi. 671, by referring to Deborah and Huldah, Judith and
   Esther, Anna, Elizabeth, and Mary, not forgetting the heathen Sappho,
   Aspasia, Themista, and the Cornelia Gracchorum, as examples of literary
   women.

   [2107] Praef. in Homil. Orig. in Cantic. Cant. tom. iii. 500. Rufinus,
   during the Origenistic controversy, did not forget to remind him of
   this sentence.

   [2108] He frequently excuses this "dictare quodcunque in buccam
   venerit," by his want of time and the weakness of his eyes. Comp.
   Preface to the third book of his Comment. in Ep. ad Galat. (tom. vii.
   486). At the close of the brief Preface to the second book of his
   Commentary on the Ep. to the Ephesians (tom. vii. 486), he says that he
   often managed to write as many as a thousand lines in one day
   ("interdum per singulos dies usque ad numerum mille versuum--i.e., here
   stichoi ---pervenire").

   [2109] "Qui nescit Scripturas, nescit Dei virtutem ejusque sapientiam;
   ignoratio Scripturarum ignoratio Christi est."

   [2110] Comp. particularly the Preface to the fifth book of his
   Commentary on Isaiah, and Ep. 53 ad Paulinum, c. 7.

   [2111]  In the Comm. on Tit. i. 5, and elsewhere, e.g., Epist. 69 ad
   Oceanum, c. 3, and Epist. 146 ad Evangelum, c. 1. Such assertions,
   which we find also in Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and Theodoret were not
   disputed at that time, but subsequently they gave rise to violent
   disputes between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Comp. my History of
   the Apostolic Church, § 132.

   [2112] He admits, for instance, chronological contradictions, or, at
   least inexplicable difficulties in the Gospel history (Ep. 57 ad
   Pammach. c. 7 and 8), and he even ventures unjustly to censure St. Paul
   for supposed solecisms, barbarisms, and weak arguments (Ep. 121 ad
   Alag.; Comment. in Gal. iii. 1; iv. 24; vi. 2; Comment. in Eph. iii. 3,
   8, 13; Comment. in Tit. i. 3).

   [2113] "Spiritualis intelligentiae vela panders," or "spirituale
   aedificium super historiae fundamentum extruere," or "quasi inter saxa
   et scopulos" (between Scylla and Charybdis), "sic inter historiam et
   allegoriam omtionis cursum flectere."

   [2114]  Ep. 52 ad Nepotianum, c. 2-4. He objects against the historical
   construction, that it is absurd, inasmuch as the aged David, then
   seventy years old, might as well have warmed himself in the arms of
   Bathsheba, Abigail, and the other wives and concubines still living,
   considering that Abraham at a still more advanced age was content with
   his Sarah, Isaac with his Rebeccah. The Shunamite, therefore, must be
   "sapientia quae numquam senescit" (c. 4, tom. i. 258). Nevertheless, in
   another place, he understands the same passage literally, Contra
   Jovinian. l. i. c. 24 (tom. i. 274), where he mentions this and other
   sins of David, "non quod sanctis viris aliquid detrahere audeam, sed
   quod aliud sit in lege versari, aliud in evangelio."

   [2115] Comp. Jerome's Com. on Gal. ii. 11-14; Aug. Epp. 28, 40, and 82,
   or Epp. 56, 67, and 116 among the Epistles of Jerome(Opera, i. 300
   sqq.; 404 sqq.; 761 sqq.) After defending for a long time his false
   interpretation, Jeromegave it up at last, a.d.415, in his Dial. contra
   Pelag. l. i. c. 22. Augustine, on the other hand, yielded his erroneous
   preference for a translation of the Old Testament from the Septuagint
   instead of the original Hebrew, although he continued to entertain an
   exaggerated estimate of the value of the Septuagint and the very
   imperfect Itala. Besides these two points of dispute the Origenistic
   errors were a subject of correspondence between these most
   distinguished fathers of the Latin Church.

   [2116] Liber de interpretatione nominum Hebraicorum, or De nominibus
   Hebr. (Opera, tom iii. 1-120). Clericus, in his Quaestiones
   Hieronymianae, severely criticised this book.

   [2117]  Liber de situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum, usually cited
   under the title Eusebii Onomasticon (urbium et locorum S. Scripturae).
   Opera, tom. iii. 121-290. Comp. Clericus: Eusebii Onomasticon cum
   versione Hieronymi, Amstel. 1707, and a modern convenient edition in
   Greek and Latin by F. Larsowand G. Parthey, Berlin, 1862.

   [2118] Opera, viii. 1-820, including the Greek fragments. There is
   added also the Chronicon of Prosper Aquitanus (pp. 821-856), and the
   Apparatus, Castigationes et Notae of Arn. Pontac. We must mention also
   the famous separate edition of Jerome's Chronicle and its continuators
   by Joseph Scaliger: Thesaurus temporum Eusebii Pamphili, Hieronymi,
   Prosperi, etc., Lugd. Bat. 1606, ed. altera Amstel. 1658. Scaliger and
   Vallarsi have spent immense industry and acuteness in editing this work
   made very difficult by the many chronological and other blunders and
   the corruptions of the text caused by ignorant and careless
   transcribers. The Chronicle of Eusebius is now known also in an
   Armenian translation, edited by Angelo Mai, Rome, 1833. The Greek
   original is lost with the exception of a few fragments of Syncellus.

   [2119] Liber de illustribus viris, or De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis,
   frequently quoted by the title Catalogus. See Opera, ed. Vallarsi, tom.
   ii. 821-956, together with the Greek translation of Pseudo-Sophronius.

   [2120]  This date is given by himself, cap. 135, in which he speaks of
   his own writings.

   [2121]  In the very first chapter he says of the Second Epistle of
   Peter that it was by most rejected as spurious "propter styli cum
   priore dissonantiam." A thorough investigation, however, leads to a
   more favorable result as to the genuineness of this Epistle. He admits
   in his catalogue even heretics, as Tatian, Bardesanes, and Priscillian,
   also the Jews Philo and Josephus, and the heathen philosopher Seneca.

   [2122] Of Chrysostomhe merely says, cap. 129: "Joannes Antiochenae
   ecclesiae presbyter, Eusebii Emiseni Diodorique sectator, multa
   componere dicitar, de quibus peri hierosunestantum legi." But
   afterwards, during the Origenistic controversies, he translated a
   passionate libel of Theophilus of Alexandria against Chrysostom, and
   praised it as a valuable book (Comp. Ep. 114 ad Theophilum, written
   405). Fragments of this miserable Libellus Theophili contra Joannem
   Chrysost. are preserved in the Defensio trium capp. l. vi. by Facundus
   of Hermiane.

   [2123] Opera, tom. ii. 1 sqq. In most of the former editions these
   Vitae are wrongly placed among the Epistles. To the same class of
   writings belongs the translation of the Regula Pachomii. Characteristic
   is the judgment of Gibbon (ch. xxxvii. ad Ann. 370): "The stories of
   Paul, Hilarion, and Malchus by Jeromeare admirably told: and the only
   defect of these pleasing compositions is the want of truth and common
   sense."

   [2124] All in the second volume of the editions of Vallarsi (p. 171
   sqq.) and Migne(p. 155 sqq.).

   [2125] Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi, or Dialogus contra
   Luciferianos. The Luciferians had their name from Lucifer, bishop of
   Calaris in Sardinia (died 371), the head of the strict Athanasian
   party, who arbitrarily ordained Paulinus bishop of Antioch in
   opposition to the legitimate Meletius (362), because the latter had
   been elected by the Arian or Semi-Arian party, although immediately
   after his ordination he had given in his adhesion to the Nicene faith.
   Lucifer afterwards fell out with the orthodox and organized a new
   schismatic party, which adopted Novatian principles of discipline, but
   in the beginning of the fifth century gradually returned to the bosom
   of the Catholic church.

   [2126] Besides these Jerometranslated several letters of Epiphanius and
   Theophilus of Alexandria against the Origenists, which have been
   incorporated by Vallarsi with the collection of Jerome's Epistles.

   [2127] Of the dead Jovinianhe says (Adv. Vigil.c. 1): "Ille Romanae
   ecclesicae auctoritate damnatus, inter phasides aves et carnes suillas
   non tam emisit spiritum, quam cructavit." He threatened his former
   friend Rufinus, whose language he had perverted into a threat to take
   his life, with a libel suit, and after his death in 410 he wrote in an
   ignoble sense of triumph (in the Prologue to his Commentary on
   Ezekiel): "Scorpius inter Enceladum et Porphyrionem Trinacriae humo
   premitur, et hydra multorum capitum contra nos aliquando sibilare
   cessavit." From Jerome's polemical writings one would form a most
   unfavorable opinion of Rufinus. Two divines of Aquileja, Fontanini and
   Maria de Rubeis, felt it their duty to vindicate his memory against
   unjust aspersions. Comp. Zöckler, l.c. p. 266 f. Augustine, in a letter
   to Jerome(Ep. Hieron. 110, c. 10), called it a "magnum et triste
   miraculum, " that the friendship of Jeromeand Rufinus should have
   turned into such enmity, and urged him to reconciliation, but in vain.
   This change, however, is easily explained, since hatred is only
   inverted love. Rufinus, it must be remembered, had not spared Jerome,
   and charged him even with worse than heathen impiety for calling, in
   hyper-ascetic zeal, Paula, the mother of the nun Eustochium, the
   "mother-in-law of God" (socrus Dei). See his Ep. xxii. c. 20 ad Paulam.

   [2128] Comp. particularly the passage Dial adv. Pelag. l. ii. c. 4
   (tom. ii. p. 744).

   [2129] Hence it is not accidental, that several writings of Pelagius,
   his Commentary on the Epistles of Paul (with some emendations), his
   Epistola ad Demetriadem de virginitate, his Libellus fidei addressed to
   pope Innocent, and the Epistola ad Celantiam matronam de rations pie
   vivendi (which was probably likewise written by him), found their way,
   by an irony of history, into the writings of Jerome, on a seeming
   resemblance in spirit and aim.

   [2130]  "Difficile inter epulas servatur pudicitia. Nitens cutis
   sordidum ostendit animum." So he wrote to two ladies, a mother and her
   daughter in Gaul, Ep. 117, c. 6 (tom. i. 786). St. Anthony, the
   patriarch of monks, and other saints of the desert were of the same
   opinion, who washed themselves but seldom and combed their hair but
   once in a year, on holy Easter (when they ought to have been eminently
   holy, that is, according to their notions, eminently slovenly). What a
   contrast this to our modern principle that cleanliness is next to
   godliness! We must, however, judge this catholic ascetic cynicism from
   the stand-point of antiquity. Even Socrates, starting from the
   principle that freedom from need was divine, despised undergarments and
   shoes, and contented himself with a miserable cloak. Yet he did not
   neglect cleanliness altogether, and censured his disciple Antisthenes,
   who ostentatiously wore a dirty and torn cloak, by reminding him:
   "Friend, vanity peeps out from the holes of thy cloak." Man is by
   nature lazy and dirty. Industry and cleanliness are the fruit of
   discipline and civilization. In this respect Europe is in advance of
   Asia, the Teutonic races in advance of the Latin. The Italians call the
   English and Americans, soap-wasters. The use of soap and of the razor
   is a test of modern civilization.

   [2131] Compare the work Against Jovinian, l. i. c. 7, 10, 12, 13, 15,
   16, 26, 33, etc., and several of his ascetic letters. Some of his
   utterances on the state of matrimony gave offence even to his monastic
   friends.

   [2132] Ep. 52 (i. 254 sqq.) de vita clericorum et monachorum, c. 5.

   [2133] Comp. a collection of the principal doctrinal and moral
   sentences of Jeromein Zöcklerp. 429 ff. and p. 458 ff.

   [2134] Comp. the various estimates of Jeromeat § 41 above; in Vallarsi,
   Opera Hier., tom. xi. 282-300, and in Zöckler, l.c. pp. 465-476. In the
   preface to his valuable monograph (p. v) Zöckler says: "Jeromeis
   chiefly the orator and the scholar among the fathers. His life is
   essentially neither the life of a monk, nor a priest--for monk and
   priest he was only by the way--nor that of a saint--for he was no saint
   at all, at least not in the sense of the Roman church. It is from
   beginning to end the life of a scholar, a life replete with literary
   studies and all sorts of scholarly enterprises." This judgment we can
   subscribe only with two qualifications: he was as much a monk as a
   scholar, and exerted an extraordinary influence on the spread of
   monasticism in the West; and his reputation as a saint rests precisely
   on the Romish overestimate of asceticism, as distinguished from the
   evangelical Protestant form of piety.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 178. Augustine.

   I. S. Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi Opera ... Post
   Lovaniensium theologorum recensionem [which appeared at Antwerp in 1577
   in 11 vols.] castigatus [referring to tomus primus, etc.] denuo ad MSS.
   codd. Gallicanos, etc. Opera et studio monachorum ordinis S. Benedicti
   e congregatione S. Mauri [Fr. Delfau, Th. Blampin, P. Coustant, and Cl.
   Guesnié]. Paris, 1679-1700, xi tom. in 8 fol. vols. The same edition
   reprinted, with additions, at Antwerp, 1700-1703, 12 parts in 9 fol.;
   and at Venice, 1729-'34, in xi tom. in 8 fol. (this is the edition from
   which I have generally quoted; it is not to be confounded with another
   Venice edition of 1756-'69 in xviii vols. 4to, which is full of
   printing errors); also at Bassano, 1807, in 18 vols.; by Gaume fratres,
   Paris, 1836-'39, in xi tom. in 22 parts (a very elegant edition); and
   lastly by J. P. Migne, Petit-Montrouge, 1841-'49, in xii tom. (Patrol.
   Lat. tom. xxxii.-xlvii.). Migne's edition (which I have also used
   occasionally) gives, in a supplementary volume (tom. xii.), the
   valuable Notitia literaria de vita, scriptis et editionibus Aug. from
   Schönemann's Bibliotheca historico-literaria Patrum Lat. vol. ii. Lips.
   1794, the Vindiciae Augustinianae of Norisius, and the writings of
   Augustine first published by Fontanini and Angelo Mai. But a thoroughly
   reliable critical edition of Augustine is still a desideratum. On the
   controversies relating to the merits of the Bened. edition, see the
   supplementary volume of Migne, xii. p. 40 sqq., and Thuillier: Histoire
   de la nouvelle ed. de S. Aug. par les PP. Bénédictins, Par. 1736. The
   first printed edition of Augustine appeared at Basle, 1489-'95;
   another, a. 1509, in 11 vols. (I have a copy of this edition in black
   letter, but without a title page); then the edition of Erasmus
   published by Frobenius, Bas. 1528-'29, in 10 vols. fol.: the Editio
   Lovaniensis, or of the divines of Louvain, Antw. 1577, in 11 vols., and
   often. Several works of Augustine have been often separately edited,
   especially the Confessions and the City of God. Compare a full list of
   the editions down to 1794 in Schönemann's Bibliotheca, vol. ii. p. 73
   sqq.

   II. Possidius (Calamensis episcopus, a pupil and friend of Aug.): Vita
   Augustini (brief, but authentic, written 432, two years after his
   death, in tom. x. Append. 257-280, ed. Bened., and in nearly all other
   editions). Benedictini Editores: Vita Augustini ex ejus potissimum
   scriptis concinnata, in 8 books (very elaborate and extensive), in tom.
   xi. 1-492, ed. Bened. (in Migne's reprint, tom. i. pp. 66-578). The
   biographies of Tillemont (Mém. tom. xiii.); Ellies Dupin (Nouvelle
   bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, tom. ii. and iii.); P. Bayle
   (Dictionnaire historique et critique, art. Augustin); Remi Ceillier
   (Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclés., vol. xi. and xii.);
   Cave (Lives of the Fathers, vol. ii.); Kloth (Der heil. Aug., Aachen,
   1840, 2 vols.); Böhringer (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, vol. i. P.
   iii. p. 99 ff.); Poujoulat (Histoire de S. Aug. Par. 1843 and 1852, 2
   vols.; the same in German by Fr. Hurter, Schaffh. 1847, 2 vols.);
   Eisenbarth (Stuttg. 1853); Ph. Schaff (St. Augustine, Berlin, 1854;
   English ed. New York and London, 1854); C. Bindemann (Der heil. Aug.,
   vol. i. Berl. 1844; vol. ii. 1855, incomplete). Braune: Monica und
   Augustin. Grimma, 1846. Comp. also the literature at § 146, p. 783.

   The Philosophy of Augustine is discussed in the larger Histories of
   Philosophy by Brucker, Tennemann, Rixner, H. Ritter (vol. vi. pp.
   153-443), Huber (Philosophie der Kirchenväter), and in the following
   works: Theod. Gangauf: Metaphysische Psychologie des heil. Augustinus.
   1ste Abtheilung, Augsburg, 1852. T. Théry: Le génie philosophique et
   littéraire de saint Augustin. Par. 1861. Abbé Flottes: Études sur saint
   Aug., son génie, son âme, sa philosophie. Par. 1861. Nourrisson: La
   philosophie de saint Augustin (ouvrage couronné par l'Institut de
   France), deuxième ed. Par. 1866, 2 vols.

   It is a venturesome and delicate undertaking to write one's own life,
   even though that life be a masterpiece of nature or of the grace of
   God, and therefore most worthy to be described. Of all autobiographies
   none has so happily avoided the reef of vanity and self-praise, and
   none has won so much esteem and love through its honesty and humility
   as that of St. Augustine.

   The "Confessions," which he wrote in the forty-sixth year of his life,
   still burning in the ardor of his first love, are full of the fire and
   unction of the Holy Ghost. They are a sublime effusion, in which
   Augustine, like David in the fifty-first Psalm, confesses to God, in
   view of his own and of succeeding generations, without reserve the sins
   of his youth; and they are at the same time a hymn of praise to the
   grace of God, which led him out of darkness into light, and called him
   to service in the kingdom of Christ. [2135] Here we see the great
   church teacher of all times "prostrate in the dust, conversing with
   God, basking in his love; his readers hovering before him only as a
   shadow." He puts away from himself all honor, all greatness, all
   beauty, and lays them gratefully at the feet of the All-merciful. The
   reader feels on every hand that Christianity is no dream nor illusion,
   but truth and life, and he is carried along in adoration of the
   wonderful grace of God.

   Aurelius Augustinus, born on the 13th of November, 354, [2136] at
   Tagaste, an unimportant village of the fertile province Numidia in
   North Africa, not far from Hippo Regius, inherited from his heathen
   father, Patricius, [2137] a passionate sensibility, from his Christian
   mother, Monica (one of the noblest women in the history of
   Christianity, of a highly intellectual and spiritual cast, of fervent
   piety, most tender affection, and all-conquering love), the deep
   yearning towards God so grandly expressed in his sentence: "Thou hast
   made us for Thee, and our heart is restless till it rests in Thee."
   [2138] This yearning, and his reverence for the sweet and holy name of
   Jesus, though crowded into the background, attended him in his studies
   at the schools of Madaura and Carthage, on his journeys to Rome and
   Milan, and on his tedious wanderings through the labyrinth of carnal
   pleasures, Manichaean mock-wisdom, Academic skepticism, and Platonic
   idealism; till at last the prayers of his mother, the sermons of
   Ambrose, the biography of St. Anthony, and, above all, the Epistles of
   Paul, as so many instruments in the hand of the Holy Ghost, wrought in
   the man of three and thirty years that wonderful change which made him
   an incalculable blessing to the whole Christian world, and brought even
   the sins and errors of his youth into the service of the truth. [2139]

   A son of so many prayers and tears could not be lost, and the faithful
   mother who travailed with him in spirit with greater pain than her body
   had in bringing him into the world, [2140] was permitted, for the
   encouragement of future mothers, to receive shortly before her death an
   answer to her prayers and expectations, and was able to leave this
   world with joy without revisiting her earthly home. For Monica died on
   a homeward journey, in Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber, in her
   fifty-sixth year, in the arms of her son, after enjoying with him a
   glorious conversation that soared above the confines of space and time,
   and was a foretaste of the eternal Sabbath-rest of the saints. She
   regretted not to die in a foreign land, because she was not far from
   God, who would raise her up at the last day. "Bury my body anywhere,"
   was her last request, "and trouble not yourselves for it; only this one
   thing I ask, that you remember me at the altar of my God, wherever you
   may be." [2141] Augustine, in his Confessions, has erected to Monica
   the noblest monument that can never perish.

   If ever there was a thorough and fruitful conversion, next to that of
   Paul on the way to Damascus, it was that of Augustine, when, in a
   garden of the Villa Cassiciacum, not far from Milan, in September of
   the year 386, amidst the most violent struggles of mind and heart--the
   birth-throes of the new life--he heard that divine voice of a child:
   "Take, read!" and he "put on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. xiii. 14). It
   is a touching lamentation of his: "I have loved Thee late, Thou Beauty,
   so old and so new; I have loved Thee late! And lo! Thou wast within,
   but I was without, and was seeking Thee there. And into Thy fair
   creation I plunged myself in my ugliness; for Thou wast with me, and I
   was not with Thee! Those things kept me away from Thee, which had not
   been, except they had been in Thee! Thou didst call, and didst cry
   aloud, and break through my deafness. Thou didst glimmer, Thou didst
   shine, and didst drive away, my blindness. Thou didst breathe, and I
   drew breath, and breathed in Thee. I tasted Thee, and I hunger and
   thirst. Thou didst touch me, and I burn for Thy peace. If I, with all
   that is within me, may once live in Thee, then shall pain and trouble
   forsake me; entirely filled with Thee, all shall be life to me."

   He received baptism from Ambrose in Milan on Easter Sunday, 387, in
   company with his friend and fellow-convert Alypius, and his natural son
   Adeodatus (given by God). It impressed the divine seal upon the inward
   transformation. He broke radically with the world; abandoned the
   brilliant and lucrative vocation of a teacher of rhetoric, which he had
   followed in Rome and Milan; sold his goods for the benefit of the poor:
   and thenceforth devoted his rare gifts exclusively to the service of
   Christ, and to that service he continued faithful to his latest breath.
   After the death of his mother, whom he revered and loved with the most
   tender affection, he went a second time to Rome for several months, and
   wrote books in defence of true Christianity against false philosophy
   and the Manichaean heresy. Returning to Africa, he spent three years,
   with his friends Alypius and Evodius, on an estate in his native
   Tagaste, in contemplative and literary retirement.

   Then, in 391, he was chosen presbyter against his will, by the voice of
   the people, which, as in the similar cases of Cyprian and Ambrose,
   proved to be the voice of God, in the Numidian maritime city of Hippo
   Regius (now Bona); and in 395 he was elected bishop in the same city.
   For eight and thirty years, until his death, he labored in this place,
   and made it the intellectual centre of Western Christendom. [2142]

   His outward mode of life was extremely simple, and mildly ascetic. He
   lived with his clergy in one house in an apostolic community of goods,
   and made this house a seminary of theology, out of which ten bishops
   and many lower clergy went forth. Females, even his sister, were
   excluded from his house, and could see him only in the presence of
   others. But he founded religious societies of women; and over one of
   these his sister, a saintly widow, presided. [2143] He once said in a
   sermon, that he had nowhere found better men, and he had nowhere found
   worse, than in monasteries. Combining, as he did, the clerical life
   with the monastic, he became unwittingly the founder of the Augustinian
   order, which gave the reformer Luther to the world. He wore the black
   dress of the Eastern coenobites, with a cowl and a leathern girdle. He
   lived almost entirely on vegetables, and seasoned the common meal with
   reading or free conversation, in which it was a rule that the character
   of an absent person should never be touched. He had this couplet
   engraved on the table:


   "Quisquis amat dictis absentum rodere vitam,

   Hanc mensam vetitam noverit esse sibi."

   He often preached five days in succession, sometimes twice a day, and
   set it as the object of his preaching, that all might live with him,
   and he with all, in Christ. Wherever he went in Africa, he was begged
   to preach the word of salvation. [2144] He faithfully administered the
   external affairs connected with his office, though he found his chief
   delight in contemplation. He was specially devoted to the poor, and,
   like Ambrose, upon exigency, caused the church vessels to be melted
   down to redeem prisoners. But he refused legacies by which injustice
   was done to natural heirs, and commended the bishop Aurelius of
   Carthage for giving back unasked some property which a man had
   bequeathed to the church, when his wife unexpectedly bore him children.

   Augustine's labors extended far beyond his little diocese. He was the
   intellectual head of the North African and the entire Western church of
   his time. He took active interest in all theological and ecclesiastical
   questions. He was the champion of the orthodox doctrine against
   Manichaean, Donatist, and Pelagian. In him was concentrated the whole
   polemic power of the catholicism of the time against heresy and schism;
   and in him it won the victory over them.

   In his last years he took a critical review of his literary
   productions, and gave them a thorough sifting in his Retractations. His
   latest controversial works against the Semi-Pelagians, written in a
   gentle spirit, date from the same period. He bore the duties of his
   office alone till his seventy-second year, when his people unanimously
   elected his friend Heraclius to be his assistant and successor.

   The evening of his life was troubled by increasing infirmities of body
   and by the unspeakable wretchedness which the barbarian Vandals spread
   over his country in their victorious invasion, destroying cities,
   villages, and churches, without mercy, and even besieging the fortified
   city of Hippo. [2145] Yet he faithfully persevered in his work. The
   last ten days of his life he spent in close retirement, in prayers and
   tears and repeated reading of the penitential Psalms, which he had
   caused to be written on the wall over his bed, that he might have them
   always before his eyes. Thus with an act of penance he closed his life.
   In the midst of the terrors of the siege and the despair of his people
   he could not suspect what abundant seed he had sown for the future.

   In the third month of the siege of Hippo, on the 28th of August, 430,
   in the seventy-sixth year of his age, in full possession of his
   faculties, and in the presence of many friends and pupils, he passed
   gently and happily into that eternity to which he had so long aspired.
   "O how wonderful," wrote he in his Meditations, [2146] "how beautiful
   and lovely are the dwellings of Thy house, Almighty God! I burn with
   longing to behold Thy beauty in Thy bridal-chamber .... O Jerusalem,
   holy city of God, dear bride of Christ, my heart loves thee, my soul
   has already long sighed for thy beauty! .... The King of kings Himself
   is in the midst of thee, and His children are within thy walls. There
   are the hymning choirs of angels, the fellowship of heavenly citizens.
   There is the wedding-feast of all who from this sad earthly pilgrimage
   have reached thy joys. There is the far-seeing choir of the prophets;
   there the number of the twelve apostles; there the triumphant army of
   innumerable martyrs and holy confessors. Full and perfect love there
   reigns, for God is all in all. They love and praise, they praise and
   love Him evermore .... Blessed, perfectly and forever blessed, shall I
   too be, if, when my poor body shall be dissolved, ... I may stand
   before my King and God, and see Him in His glory, as He Himself hath
   deigned to promise: 'Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given
   Me be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory which I had
   with Thee before the world was.' " This aspiration after the heavenly
   Jerusalem found grand expression in the hymn De gloria et gaudiis
   Paradisi:


   "Ad perennis vitae fontem mens sativit arida,"

   which is incorporated in the Meditations of Augustine, and the idea of
   which originated in part with him, though it was not brought into
   poetical form till long afterwards by Peter Damiani. [2147]

   He left no will, for in his voluntary poverty he had no earthly
   property to dispose of, except his library; this he bequeathed to the
   church, and it was fortunately preserved from the depredations of the
   Arian barbarians. [2148]

   Soon after his death Hippo was taken and destroyed by the Vandals.
   [2149] Africa was lost to the Romans. A few decades later the whole
   West-Roman empire fell in ruins. The culmination of the African church
   was the beginning of its decline. But the work of Augustine could not
   perish. His ideas fell like living seed into the soil of Europe, and
   produced abundant fruits in nations and countries of which he had never
   heard. [2150]

   Augustine, the man with upturned eye, with pen in the left hand, and a
   burning heart in the right (as he is usually represented), is a
   philosophical and theological genius of the first order, towering like
   a pyramid above his age, and looking down commandingly upon succeeding
   centuries. He had a mind uncommonly fertile and deep, bold and soaring;
   and with it, what is better, a heart full of Christian love and
   humility. He stands of right by the side of the greatest philosophers
   of antiquity and of modern times. We meet him alike on the broad
   highways and the narrow footpaths, on the giddy Alpine heights and in
   the awful depths of speculation, wherever philosophical thinkers before
   him or after him have trod. As a theologian he is facile princeps, at
   least surpassed by no church father, scholastic, or reformer. With
   royal munificence he scattered ideas in passing, which have set in
   mighty motion other lands and later times. He combined the creative
   power of Tertullian with the churchly spirit of Cyprian, the
   speculative intellect of the Greek church with the practical tact of
   the Latin. He was a Christian philosopher and a philosophical
   theologian to the full. It was his need and his delight to wrestle
   again and again with the hardest problems of thought, and to comprehend
   to the utmost the divinely revealed matter of the faith. [2151] He
   always asserted, indeed, the primacy of faith, according to his maxim:
   Fides praecedit intellectum; appealing, with theologians before him, to
   the well-known passage of Isaiah vii. 9 (in the LXX.): "Nisi
   credideritis, non intelligetis." But to him faith itself was an acting
   of reason, and from faith to knowledge, therefore, there was a
   necessary transition. [2152] He constantly looked below the surface to
   the hidden motives of actions and to the universal laws of diverse
   events. The metaphysician and the Christian believer coalesced in him.
   His meditatio passes with the utmost ease into oratio, and his oratio
   into meditatio. With profundity he combined an equal clearness and
   sharpness of thought. He was an extremely skilful and a successful
   dialectician, inexhaustible in arguments and in answers to the
   objections of his adversaries.

   He has enriched Latin literature with a greater store of beautiful,
   original, and pregnant proverbial sayings, than any classic author, or
   any other teacher of the church. [2153]

   He had a creative and decisive hand in almost every dogma of the
   church, completing some, and advancing others. The centre of his system
   is the free redeeming grace of God in Christ, operating through the
   actual, historical church. He is evangelical or Pauline in his doctrine
   of sin and grace, but catholic (that is, old-catholic, not Roman
   Catholic) in his doctrine of the church. The Pauline element comes
   forward mainly in the Pelagian controversy, the catholic-churchly in
   the Donatist; but each is modified by the other.

   Dr. Baur incorrectly makes freedom the fundamental idea of the
   Augustinian system (it much better suits the Pelagian), and founds on
   this view an ingenious, but only half true, comparison between
   Augustine and Origen. "There is no church teacher of the ancient
   period," says he, [2154] "who, in intellect and in grandeur and
   consistency of view, can more justly be placed by the side of Origen
   than Augustine; none who, with all the difference in individuality and
   in mode of thought, so closely resembles him. How far both towered
   above their times, is most clearly manifest in the very fact that they
   alone, of all the theologians of the first six centuries, became the
   creators of distinct systems, each proceeding from its definite idea,
   and each completely carried out; and this fact proves also how much the
   one system has that is analogous to the other. The one system, like the
   other, is founded upon the idea of freedom; in both there is a specific
   act, by which the entire development of human life is determined; and
   in both this is an act which lies far outside of the temporal
   consciousness of the individual; with this difference alone, that in
   one system the act belongs to each separate individual himself, and
   only falls outside of his temporal life and consciousness; in the
   other, it lies within the sphere of the temporal history of man, but is
   only the act of one individual. If in the system of Origen nothing
   gives greater offence than the idea of the pre-existence and fall of
   souls, which seems to adopt heathen ideas into the Christian faith,
   there is in the system of Augustine the same overleaping of individual
   life and consciousness, in order to explain from an act in the past the
   present sinful condition of man; but the pagan Platonic point of view
   is exchanged for one taken from the Old Testament .... What therefore
   essentially distinguishes the system of Augustine from that of Origen,
   is only this: the fall of Adam is substituted for the pre-temporal fall
   of souls, and what in Origen still wears a heathen garb, puts on in
   Augustine a purely Old Testament form."

   The learning of Augustine was not equal to his genius, nor as extensive
   as that of Origen and Eusebius, but still considerable for his time,
   and superior to that of any of the Latin fathers, with the single
   exception of Jerome. He had received in the schools of Madaura and
   Carthage a good theoretical and rhetorical preparation for the forum,
   which stood him in good stead also in theology. He was familiar with
   Latin literature, and was by no means blind to the excellencies of the
   classics, though he placed them far below the higher beauty of the Holy
   Scriptures. The Hortensius of Cicero (a lost work) inspired him during
   his university course with enthusiasm for philosophy and for the
   knowledge of truth for its own sake; the study of Platonic and
   Neo-Platonic works (in the Latin version of the rhetorician Victorinus)
   kindled in him an incredible fire; [2155] though in both he missed the
   holy name of Jesus and the cardinal virtues of love and humility, and
   found in them only beautiful ideals without power to conform him to
   them. His City of God, his book on heresies, and other writings, show
   an extensive knowledge of ancient philosophy, poetry, and history,
   sacred and secular. He refers to the most distinguished persons of
   Greece and Rome; he often alludes to Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle,
   Plotin, Porphyry, Cicero, Seneca, Horace, Virgil, to the earlier Greek
   and Latin fathers, to Eastern and Western heretics. But his knowledge
   of Greek literature was mostly derived from Latin translations. With
   the Greek language, as he himself frankly and modestly confesses, he
   had, in comparison with Jerome, but a superficial acquaintance. [2156]
   Hebrew he did not understand at all. Hence, with all his extraordinary
   familiarity with the Latin Bible, he made many mistakes in exposition.
   He was rather a thinker than a scholar, and depended mainly on his own
   resources, which were always abundant. [2157]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2135] Augustinehimself says of his Confessions: "Confessionum mearum
   libri tredecim et de malis et de bonis meis Deum laudant justum et
   bonum, atque in eum excitant humanum intellectum et affectum." Retract.
   l. ii. c. 6.

   [2136] He died, according to the Chronicle of his friend and pupil
   Prosper Aquitanus, the 28th of August, 430 (in the third month of the
   siege of Hippo by the Vandals); according to his biographer Possidius
   he lived seventy-six years. The day of his birth Augustinestates
   himself, De vita beata, § 6 (tom. i. 800): "Idibus Novembris mihi
   natalis dies erat."

   [2137] He received baptism shortly before his death.

   [2138] Conf. i. I: "Fecisti nos ad Te, et inquietum est cor nostrum,
   donee requiescat in Te." In all his aberrations, which we would hardly
   know, if it were not from his own free confession, he never sunk to
   anything mean, but remained, like Paul in his Jewish fanaticism, a
   noble intellect and an honorable character, with burning love for the
   true and the good.

   [2139] For particulars respecting the course of Augustine's life, see
   my work above cited, and other monographs. Comp. also the fine remarks
   of Dr. Baurin his posthumous Lectures on Doctrine-History (1866), vol.
   i. Part ii, p. 26 ff. He compares the development of Augustinewith the
   course of Christianity from the beginning to his time, and draws a
   parallel between Augustineand Origen.

   [2140] Conf. ix. c. 8: "Quae me parturivit et carne ut in hanc
   temporalem, et corde, ut in aeternam lucem nascerer." L. v. 9: "Non
   enim satis eloquor, quid erga me habebat animi, et quanto majore
   sollicitudine me parturiebat spiritu, quam came pepererat."

   [2141] Conf. l. ix. c. 11 "Tantum illud vos rogo, ut ad Domini altare
   memineritis mei, ubi fueritis." This must be explained from the already
   prevailing custom of offering prayers for the dead, which, however, had
   rather the form of thanksgiving for the mercy of God shown to them,
   than the later form of intercession for them. Comp. above, § 84, p. 432
   ff.

   [2142] He is still known among the inhabitants of the place as "the
   great Christian (Rumi Kebir). Gibbon(ch. xxxiii. ad Ann. 430) thus
   describes the place which became so famous through Augustine: " The
   maritime colony of Hippo, about two hundred miles westward of Carthage,
   had formerly acquired the distinguishing epithet of Regius, from the
   residence of the Numidian kings; and some remains of trade and
   populousness still adhere to the modern city, which is known in Europe
   by the corrupted name of Bona." See below, Fn126.

   [2143] He mentions a sister, "soror mea, sancta proposita"
   [monasterii], without naming her Epist. 211, n. 4 (ed. Bened.), alias
   Ep. 109. He also had a brother by the name of Navigius.

   [2144] Possidius says, in his Vita Aug.: "Caeterum episcopatu suscepto
   multo instantius ac ferventius majore auctoritate, non in una tantum
   regione, sed ubicunque rogatus verisset verbum salutis alacriter ac
   suaviter, pullulante atque crescente Domini ecclesia, praedicavit."

   [2145] Possidius, c. 28, gives a vivid picture of the ravages of the
   Vandals, which have become proverbial. Comp. also Gibbon, ch. xxxiii.

   [2146] I freely combine several passages.

   [2147] Comp. Daniel: Thesaurus hymnol. i. p. 116 sqq., and iv. p. 203
   sq., and 116, above (p. 593, note 1).

   [2148] Possidius says, Vita, c. 31: "Testamentum nullum fecit, quia
   unde faceret, pauper Dei non habuit. Ecclesiae bibliothecam omnesque
   codices diligenter posteris custodiendos semper jubebat."

   [2149] The inhabitants escaped to the sea. There appears no bishop of
   Hippo after Augustine. In the seventh century the old city was utterly
   destroyed by the Arabians, but two miles from it Bona was built out of
   its ruins. Comp. Tillemont, xii i. 945, and Gibbon, ch. xxxiii. Gibbon
   says, that Bona, "in the sixteenth century, contained about three
   hundred families of industrious, but turbulent manufacturers. The
   adjacent territory is renowned for a pure air, a fertile soil, and
   plenty of exquisite fruits." Since the French conquest of Algiers, Bona
   was rebuilt in 1832, and is gradually assuming a French aspect. It is
   now one of the finest towns in Algeria, the key to the province of
   Constantine, has a public garden, several schools, considerable
   commerce, and a population of over 10,000 of French, Moors, and Jews,
   the great majority of whom are foreigners. The relics of St.
   Augustinehave been recently transferred from Pavia to Bona. See the
   letters of abbé Sibour to Poujoulat sur la translation de la relique de
   saint Augustin de Pavie à Hippone, in Poujoulat'sHistoire de saint
   Augustin, tom. i. p. 413 sqq.

   [2150] Even in Africa Augustine's spirit reappeared from time to time,
   notwithstanding the barbarian confusion, as a light in darkness, first
   in Vigilius, bishop of Tapsus, who, at the close of the fifth century,
   ably defended the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the person of
   Christ, and to whom the authorship of the so-called Athanasian Creed
   has sometimes been ascribed; in Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, one of the
   chief opponents of Semi-Pelagianism, and the later Arianism, who with
   sixty catholic bishops of Africa was banished for several years by the
   Arian Vandals to the island of Sardinia, and who was called the
   Augustineof the sixth century died 533); and in Facundus of Hermiane
   (died 570), and Fulgentius Ferrandusand Liberatus, two deacons of
   Carthage, who took a prominent part in the Three Chapter controversy.

   [2151] Or, as he wrote to a friend about the year 410, Epist. 120, c.
   1, § 2 (tom. ii. p. 347, ed. Bened. Venet.; in older ed., Ep. 122): "Ut
   quod credis intelligas ... non ut fidem respuas, sed ea quae fidei
   firmitate jam tenes, etiam rationis luce conspicias." He continues,
   ibid. c. 3: "Absit namque, ut hoe in nobis Deus oderit, in quo nos
   reliquis animalibus excellentiores creavit. Absit, inquam, ut ideo
   credamus, ne rationem accipiamus vel quaeramus; cum etiam credere non
   possemus, nisi rationales animas haberemus." In one of his earliest
   works, Contra Academ. l. iii. c. 20, § 43, he says of himself: "Ita sum
   affectus, ut quid sit verum non credendo solum, sed etiam intelligendo
   apprehendere impatienter desiderem."

   [2152] Comp. De praed. Sanct. cap. 2, § 5 (tom. x. p. 792): "Ipsum
   credere nihil aliud est quam cum assensione cogitare. Non enim omnia
   qui cogitat, credit, cum ideo cogitant, plurique ne credant; sed
   cogitat omnia qui credit, et credendo cogitat et cogitando credit.
   Fides si non cogitetur, nulls est." Ep. 120, cap. 1, § 3 (tom. ii.
   347), and Ep. 137, c. 4, § 15 (tom. ii. 408): "Intellectui fides aditum
   aperit, infidelitas claudit." Augustine's view of faith and knowledge
   is discussed at large by Gangauf, Metaphysische Psychologie des heil
   Augustinus, i. pp. 31-76, and by Nourrisson, La philosophie de saint
   Augustin, tom. ii. 282-290.

   [2153] Prosper Aquitanus collected from the works of Augustinea long
   list of sentences (see the Appendix to the tenth vol. of the Bened. ed.
   p. 223 sqq.), with reference to theological purport and the Pelagian
   controversies. We recall some of the best, which he has omitted: "Novum
   Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet." "Distingue tempora,
   et concordabit Scriptura." "Cor nostrum inquietum est, donec requiescat
   in Te." "Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis." "Non vincit nisi veritas,
   victoria veritatis est caritas." "Ubi amor, ibi trinitas." "Fides
   praecedit intellectum." "Deo servire vera libertas est." "Nulla
   infelicitas frangit, quem felicitas nulls corrumpit." The famous maxim
   of ecclesiastical harmony: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis (or non
   necessariis) libertas, in omnibus (in utrisque) caritas,"--which is
   often ascribed to Augustine, dates in this form not from him, but from
   a much later period. Dr. Lücke(in a special treatise on the antiquity
   of the author, the original form, etc., of this sentence, Göttingen,
   1850) traces the authorship to Rupert Meldenius, an irenical German
   theologian of the seventeenth century.

   [2154] L.c.p. 30 sq.

   [2155] Adv. Academicos, l. ii. c. 2, § 5: "Etiam mihi ipsi de me
   incredibile incendium concitarunt." And in several passages of the
   Civitas Dei (viii. 3-12; xxii. 27) he speaks very favorably of Plato,
   and also of Aristotle, and thus broke the way for the high authority of
   the Aristotelian philosophy with the scholastics of the middle age.

   [2156] It is sometimes asserted that he had no knowledge at all of the
   Greek. So Gibbon, for example, says (ch. xxxiii.): "The superficial
   learning of Augustinewas confined to the Latin language." But this is
   as much a mistake as the other assertion of Gibbon, that "the orthodoxy
   of St. Augustinewas derived from the Manichaean school." In his youth
   he had a great aversion to the glorious language of Hellas (Conf. i.
   14), and read the writings of Plato in a Latin translation (vii. 9).
   But after his baptism during his second residence in Rome, he took it
   up again with greater zest, for the sake of his biblical studies. In
   Hippo he had, while presbyter, good opportunity to advance in it, since
   his bishop, Aurelius, a native Greek, understood his mother tongue much
   better than the Latin. In his books he occasionally makes reference to
   the Greek. In his work Contra Jul. i. c. 6 § 21 (tom. x. 510), he
   corrects the Pelagian Julianin a translation from Chrysostom, quoting
   the original. "Ego ipsa verba Graeca quae a Joanne dicta sunt ponam:
   `dia touto kai ta paidia baptizomen, kaitoi hamaptemata ouk echonta,
   quod est Latine: Ideo et infantes baptizamus, quamvis peccata non
   habentes." Julianhad freely rendered this: "cum non sint coinquinati
   peccato," and had drawn the inference: "Sanctus Joannes
   Constantinopolitanus negat esse in parvulis originale peccatum."
   Augustinehelps himself out of the pinch by arbitrarily supplying
   propria to hamartemata, so that the idea of sin inherited from another
   is not excluded. The Greek fathers, however, did not consider
   hereditary corruption to be proper sin or guilt at all, but only
   defect, weakness, or disease. In the City of God, lib. xix. c. 23, he
   quotes a passage from Porphyry's ek logion philosophia. It is probable
   that he read Plotin, and the Panarion of Epiphanius or the summary of
   it, in Greek (while the Church History of Eusebius he knew only in the
   translation of Rufinus). But in his exegetical and other works he very
   rarely consults the Septuagint or Greek Testament, and was content with
   the very imperfect Itala or the improved version of Jerome. The
   Benedictine editors overestimate his knowledge of Greek. He himself
   frankly confesses that he knew very little of it, De Trinit. l. iii.
   Prooem. ("Graecae linguae non sit nobis tantus habitus, ut talium rerum
   libris legendis et intelligendis uno modo reperiamur idonei"), and
   Contra literas Petiliani (written in 400), l. ii. c. 38 ("Et ego quidem
   Graecae linguae perparum assecutus sum, et prope nihil"). On the
   philosophical learning of Augustinemay be compared Nourrisson, l.c. ii.
   p. 92 ff.

   [2157] 166  The following are some of the most intelligent and
   appreciative estimates of Augustine. Erasmus(Ep. dedicat. ad Alfons.
   archiep. Tolet. 1529) says, with an ingenious play upon the name
   Aurelius Augustinus: "Quid habet orbis christianus hoc scriptore magis
   aureum vel augustius? ut ipsa vocabula nequaquam fortuito, sed numinis
   providentia videantur indita viro. Auro sapientiae nihil pretiosius:
   fulgore eloquentiae cum sapientia conjunctae nihil mirabilius .... Non
   arbitror alium esse doctorem, in quem opulentus ille ac benignus
   Spiritus dotes suas omnes largius effuderit, quam in Augustinum." The
   great philosopher Leibnitz(Praefat. ad Theodic. § 34) calls him "virum
   sane magnum et ingenii stupendi," and "vastissimo ingenio praeditum."
   Dr. Baur, without sympathy with his views, speaks enthusiastically of
   the man and his genius. Among other things be says (Vorlesungen über
   Dogmengeschichte, i. i. p. 61): "There is scarcely another theological
   author so fertile and withal so able as Augustine. His scholarship was
   certainly not equal to his mind; yet even that is sometimes set too
   low, when it is asserted that he had no acquaintance at all with the
   Greek language; for this is incorrect, though he had attained no great
   proficiency in Greek." C. Bindemann(a Lutheran divine) begins his
   thorough monograph (vol. i. preface) with the well-deserved eulogium:
   "St. Augustineis one of the greatest personages in the church. He is
   second in importance to none of the teachers who have wrought most in
   the church since the apostolic time; and it can well be said that among
   the church fathers the first place is due to him, and in the time of
   the Reformation a Luther alone, for fulness and depth of thought and
   grandeur of character, may stand by his side. He is the summit of the
   development of the mediaeval Westem church; from him descended the
   mysticism, no less than the scholasticism, of the middle age; he was
   one of the strongest pillars of the Roman Catholicism, and from his
   works, next to the Holy Scriptures, especially the Epistles of Paul,
   the leaders of the Reformation drew most of that conviction by which a
   new age was introduced." Staudenmaier, a Roman Catholic theologian,
   counts Augustineamong those minds in which an hundred others dwell
   (Scotus Erigena, i. p. 274). The Roman Catholic philosophers A.
   Güntherand Th. Gangauf, put him on an equality with the greatest
   philosophers, and discern in him a providential personage endowed by
   the Spirit of God for the instruction of all ages. A striking
   characterization is that of Dr. Johannes Huber(in his instructive work:
   Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter, Munich, 1859, p. 312 sq.):
   "Augustineis a unique phenomenon in Christian history. No one of the
   other fathers has left so luminous traces of his existence. Though we
   find among them many rich and powerful minds yet we find in none the
   forces of personal character, mind, heart, and will, so largely
   developed and so harmoniously working. No one surpasses him in wealth
   of perceptions and dialectical sharpness of thoughts, in depth and
   fervor of religious sensibility, in greatness of aims and energy of
   action. He therefore also marks the culmination of the patriotic age,
   and has been elevated by the acknowledgment of succeeding times as the
   first and the universal church father.--His whole character reminds us
   in many respects of Paul, with whom he has also in common the
   experience of being called from manifold errors to the service of the
   gospel, and like whom he could boast that he had labored in it more
   abundantly than all the others. And as Paul among the Apostles
   pre-eminently determined the development of Christianity, and became,
   more than all others, the expression of the Christian mind, to which
   men ever afterwards return, as often as in the life of the church that
   mind becomes turbid, to draw from him, as the purest fountain, a fresh
   understanding of the gospel doctrine,--so has Augustineturned the
   Christian nations since his time for the most part into his paths, and
   become pre-eminently their trainer and teacher, in the study of whom
   they always gain a renewal and deepening of their consciousness. Not
   the middle age alone, but the Reformation also, was ruled by him, and
   whatever to this day boasts of the Christian spirit, is connected at
   least in part with Augustine." Nourrisson, the latest French writer on
   Augustine, whose work is clothed with the authority of the Institute of
   France, assigns to the bishop of Hippo the fast rank among the masters
   of human thought, alongside of Plato and Leibnitz, Thomas Aquinas and
   Bossuet. "Si une critique toujours respectueuse, mais d'une inviolable
   sincérité, est une des formes les plus hautes de l'admiration,
   j'estime, au contraire, n'avoir fait qu'exalter ce grand coeur, ce
   psychologue consolant et ému, ce métaphysicien subtil et sublime, en un
   mot, cet attachant et poétique génie, dont la place reste marquée, au
   premier rang, parmi le maîtres de la pensée humaine, à côté de Platon
   et de Descartes, d'Aristote et de saint Thomas, de Leibniz et de
   Bossuet." (La philosophie de saint Augustin, Par. 1866, tom. i. p.
   vii.) Among English and American writers, Dr. Shedd, in the
   Introduction to his edition of an old translation of the Confessions
   (1860), has furnished a truthful and forcible description of the mind
   and heart of St. Augustine, as portrayed in this remarkable book.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 179. The Works of Augustine.

   The numerous writings of Augustine, the composition of which extended
   through four and forty years, are a mine of Christian knowledge and
   experience. They abound in lofty ideas, noble sentiments, devout
   effusions, clear statements of truth, strong arguments against error,
   and passages of fervid eloquence and undying beauty, but also in
   innumerable repetitions, fanciful opinions, and playful conjectures of
   his uncommonly fertile brain. [2158] His style is full of life and
   vigor and ingenious plays on words, but deficient in purity and
   elegance, and by no means free from wearisome prolixity and from that
   vagabunda loquacitas, with which his adroit opponent, Julian of
   Eclanum, charged him. He would rather, as he said, be blamed by
   grammarians, than not understood by the people; and he bestowed little
   care upon his style, though he many a time rises in lofty poetic
   flight. He made no point of literary renown, but, impelled by love to
   God and to the church, he wrote from the fulness of his mind and heart.
   The writings before his conversion, a treatise on the Beautiful (De
   Pulchro et Apto), the orations and eulogies which he delivered as
   rhetorician at Carthage, Rome, and Milan, are lost. The professor of
   eloquence, the heathen philosopher, the Manichaean heretic, the sceptic
   and freethinker, are known to us only, from his regrets and
   recantations in the Confessions and other works. His literary career
   for as commences in his pious retreat at Cassiciacum where he prepared
   himself for a public profession of his faith. He appears first, in the
   works composed at Cassiciacum, Rome, and near Tagaste, as a Christian
   philosopher, after his consecration to the priesthood as a theologian.
   Yet even in his theological works he everywhere manifests the
   metaphysical and speculative bent of his mind. He never abandoned or
   depreciated reason, he only subordinated it to faith and made it
   subservient to the defence of revealed truth. Faith is the pioneer of
   reason, and discovers the territory which reason explores.

   The following is a classified view of his most important works, the
   contents of the most of which we have already noticed in former
   sections. [2159]

   I. Autobiographical works. To these belong the Confessions and the
   Retractations; the former acknowledging his sins, the latter his
   theoretical errors. In the one he subjects his life, in the other his
   writings, to close criticism; and these productions therefore furnish
   the best standard for judging of his entire labors. [2160]

   The Confessions are the most profitable, at least the most edifying,
   product of his pen; indeed, we may no doubt say, the most edifying book
   in all the patristic literature. They were accordingly, the most read
   even during his lifetime, [2161] and they have been the most frequently
   published since. [2162] A more sincere and more earnest book was never
   written. The historical part, to the tenth book, is one of the
   devotional classics of all creeds, and second in popularity only to the
   "Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a Kempis, and Bunyan's "Pilgrim's
   Progress." Certainly no autobiography is superior to it in true
   humility, spiritual depth, and universal interest. Augustine's
   experience, as a heathen sensualist, a Manichaean heretic, an anxious
   inquirer, a sincere penitent, and a grateful convert, is reflected in
   every human soul that struggles through the temptations of nature and
   the labyrinth of error to the knowledge of truth and the beauty of
   holiness, and after many sighs and tears finds rest ad peace in the
   arms of a merciful Saviour. Rousseau's "Confessions," and Goethe's
   "Truth and Poetry," though written in a radically different spirit, may
   be compared with Augustine's Confessions as works of rare genius and of
   absorbing interest, but, by attempting to exalt human nature in its
   unsanctified state, they tend as much to expose its vanity and
   weakness, as the work of the bishop of Hippo, being written with a
   single eye to the glory of God, raises man from the dust of repentance
   to a new and imperishable life of the Spirit. [2163]

   Augustine composed the Confessions about the year 400. The first ten
   books contain, in the form of a continuous prayer and confession before
   God, a general sketch of his earlier life, of his conversion, and of
   his return to Africa in the thirty-fourth year of his age. The salient
   points in these books are the engaging history of his conversion in
   Milan, and the story of the last days of his noble mother in Ostia,
   spent as it were at the very gate of heaven and in full assurance of a
   blessed reunion at the throne of glory. The last three books (and a
   part of the tenth) are devoted to speculative philosophy; they treat,
   partly in tacit opposition to Manichaeism, of the metaphysical
   questions of the possibility of knowing God, and the nature of time and
   space; and they give an interpretation of the Mosaic cosmogony in the
   style of the typical allegorical exegesis usual with the fathers, but
   foreign to our age; they are therefore of little value to the general
   reader, except as showing that even abstract metaphysical subjects may
   be devotionally treated.

   The Retractations were produced in the evening of his life (427), when,
   mindful of the proverb: "In the multitude of words there wanteth not
   sin," [2164] and remembering that we must give account for every idle
   word, [2165] he judged himself, that he might not be judged. [2166] He
   revised in chronological order the numerous works he had written before
   and during his episcopate, and retracted or corrected whatever in them
   seemed to his riper knowledge false or obscure. In all essential
   points, nevertheless, his theological system remained the same from his
   conversion to this time. The Retractations give beautiful evidence of
   his love of truth, his conscientiousness, and his humility. [2167]

   To this same class should be added the Letters of Augustine, of which
   the Benedictine editors, in their second volume, give two hundred and
   seventy (including letters to Augustine) in chronological order from
   a.d. 386 to a.d. 429. These letters treat, sometimes very minutely, of
   all the important questions of his time, and give us an insight of his
   cares, his official fidelity, his large heart, and his effort to
   become, like Paul, all things to all men.

   When the questions of friends and pupils accumulated, he answered them
   in special works; and in this way he produced various collections of
   Quaestiones and Responsiones, dogmatical, exegetical, and miscellaneous
   (a.d. 390, 397, &c.).

   II. Philosophical treatises, in dialogue; almost all composed in his
   earlier life; either during his residence on the country-seat
   Cassiciacum in the vicinity of Milan, where he spent half a year before
   his baptism in instructive and stimulating conversation in a sort of
   academy or Christian Platonic banquet with Monica, his son Adeodatus,
   his brother Navigius, his friend Alypius, and some cousins and pupils;
   or during his second residence in Rome; or soon after his return to
   Africa. [2168]

   To this class belong the works: Contra Academicos libri tres (386), in
   which he combats the skepticism and probabilism of the New
   Academy,--the doctrine that man can never reach the truth, but can at
   best attain only probability; De vita beata (386), in which he makes
   true blessedness to consist in the perfect knowledge of God; De
   ordine,--on the relation of evil to the divine order of the world
   [2169] (386); Soliloquia (387), communings with his own soul concerning
   God, the highest good, the knowledge of truth, and immortality; De
   immortalitate animae (387), a continuation of the Soliloquies; De
   quantitate animae (387), discussing sundry questions of the size, the
   origin, the incorporeity of the soul; De musica libri vi (387389); De
   magistro (389), in which, in a dialogue with his son Adeodatus, a pious
   and promising, but precocious youth, who died soon after his return to
   Africa (389), he treats on the importance and virtue of the word of
   God, and on Christ as the infallible Master. [2170] To these may be
   added the later work, De anima et ejus origine (419). Other
   philosophical works on grammar, dialectics (or ars bene disputandi),
   rhetoric, geometry, and arithmetic, are lost. [2171]

   These works exhibit as yet little that is specifically Christian and
   churchly; but they show a Platonism seized and consecrated by the
   spirit of Christianity, full of high thoughts, ideal views, and
   discriminating argument. They were designed to present the different
   stages of human thought by which he himself had reached the knowledge
   of the truth, and to serve others as steps to the sanctuary. They form
   an elementary introduction to his theology. He afterwards, in his
   Retractations, withdrew many things contained in them, like the
   Platonic view of the pre-existence of the soul, and the Platonic idea
   that the acquisition of knowledge is a recollection or excavation of
   the knowledge hidden in the mind. [2172] The philosopher in him
   afterwards yielded more and more to the theologian, and his views
   became more positive and empirical, though in some cases narrower also
   and more exclusive. Yet he could never cease to philosophize, and even
   his later works, especially De Trinitate and De Civitate Dei, are full
   of profound speculations. Before his conversion he, followed a
   particular system of philosophy, first the Manichaean, then the
   Platonic; after his conversion he embraced the Christian philosophy,
   which is based on the divine revelation of the Scriptures, and is the
   handmaid of theology and religion; but at the same time he prepared the
   way for the catholic ecclesiastical philosophy, which rests on the
   authority of the church, and became complete in the scholasticism of
   the middle age.

   In the history of philosophy he deserves a place in the highest rank,
   and has done greater service to the science of sciences than any other
   father, Clement of Alexandria and Origen not excepted. He attacked and
   refuted the pagan philosophy as pantheistic or dualistic at heart; he
   shook the superstitions of astrology and magic; he expelled from
   philosophy the doctrine of emanation, and the idea that God is the soul
   of the world; he substantially advanced psychology; he solved the
   question of the origin and the nature of evil more nearly than any of
   his predecessors, and as nearly as most of his successors; he was the
   first to investigate thoroughly the relation of divine omnipotence and
   omniscience to human freedom, and to construct a theodicy; in short, he
   is properly the founder of a Christian philosophy, and not only divided
   with Aristotle the empire of the mediaeval scholasticism, but furnished
   also living germs for new systems of philosophy, and will always be
   consulted in the speculative establishment of Christian doctrines.

   III. Apologetic works against Pagans and Jews. Among these the
   twenty-two books, De Civitate Dei, are still well worth reading. They
   form the deepest and richest apologetic work of antiquity; begun in
   413, after the occupation of Rome by the Gothic king Alaric, finished
   in 426, and often separately published. They condense his entire theory
   of the world and of man, and are the first attempt at a comprehensive
   philosophy of universal history under the dualistic view of two
   antagonistic currents or organized forces, a kingdom of this world
   which is doomed to final destruction and a kingdom of God which will
   last forever. [2173]

   IV. Religious-Theological works of a general nature (in part
   anti-Manichaean): De utilitate credendi, against the Gnostic exaltation
   of knowledge (392); De fide et symbolo, a discourse which, though only
   presbyter, he delivered on the Apostles' Creed before the council at
   Hippo at the request of the bishops in 393; De doctrina Christiana iv
   libri (397; the fourth book added in 426), a compend of exegetical
   theology for instruction in the interpretation of the Scriptures
   according to the analogy of the faith; De catechizandis rudibus,
   likewise for catechetical purposes (400); Enchiridion, or De fide, spe
   et caritate, a brief compend of the doctrine of faith and morals, which
   he wrote in 421, or later, at the request of Laurentius; hence also
   called Manuale ad Laurentium.

   V. Polemic-Theological works. These are the most copious sources of the
   history of doctrine. The heresies collectively are reviewed in the book
   De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum, written between 428 and 430 to a friend
   and deacon in Carthage, and giving a survey of eighty-eight heresies,
   from the Simonians to the Pelagians. [2174] In the work De vera
   religione (390) Augustine proposed to show that the true religion is to
   be found not with the heretics and schismatics, but only in the
   catholic church of that time.

   The other controversial works are directed against the particular
   heresies of Manichaeism, Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism, and
   Semi-Pelagianism. Augustine, with all the firmness of his convictions,
   was free from personal antipathy, and used the pen of controversy in
   the genuine Christian spirit, fortiter in re, suaviter in modo. He
   understood Paul's aletheuein en agape, and forms in this respect a
   pleasing contrast to Jerome, who probably had by nature no more fiery
   temperament than he, but was less able to control it. "Let those," he
   very beautifully says to the Manichaeans, "burn with hatred against
   you, who do not know how much pains it costs to find the truth, how
   hard it is to guard against error;--but I, who after so great and long
   wavering came to know the truth, must bear myself towards you with the
   same patience which my fellow-believers showed towards me while I was
   wandering in blind madness in your opinions." [2175]

   1. The anti-Manichaean works date mostly from his earlier life, and in
   time and matter follow immediately upon his philosophical writings.
   [2176] In them he afterwards found most to retract, because he
   advocated the freedom of the will against the Manichaean fatalism. The
   most important are: De moribus ecclesiae catholicae, et de moribus
   Manichaeorum, two books (written during his second residence in Rome,
   388); De vera religione (390); Unde malum, et de libero arbitrio,
   usually simply De libero arbitrio, in three books, against the
   Manichaean doctrine of evil as a substance, and as having its seat in
   matter instead of free will (begun in 388, finished in 395); De Genesi
   contra Manichaeos, a defence of the biblical doctrine of creation
   (389); De duabus animabus, against the psychological dualism of the
   Manichaeans (392); Disputatio contra Fortunatum (a triumphant
   refutation of this Manichaean priest in Hippo in August, 392); Contra
   Epistolam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti (397); Contra Faustum
   Manichaeum, in thirty-three books (400-404); De natura boni (404), &c.

   These works treat of the origin of evil; of free will; of the harmony
   of the Old and New Testaments, and of revelation and nature; of
   creation out of nothing, in opposition to dualism and hylozoism; of the
   supremacy of faith over knowledge; of the, authority of the Scriptures
   and the church; of the true and the false asceticism, and other
   disputed points; and they are the chief source of our knowledge of the
   Manichaean Gnosticism and of the arguments against it. Having himself
   belonged for nine years to this sect, Augustine was the better fitted
   for the task of refuting it, as Paul was peculiarly prepared for the
   confutation of the Pharisaic Judaism. His doctrine of the nature of
   evil is particularly valuable, He has triumphantly demonstrated for all
   time, that evil is not a corporeal thing, nor in any way substantial,
   but a product of the free will of the creature, a perversion of
   substance in itself good, a corruption of the nature created by God.

   2. Against the Priscillianists, a sect in Spain built on Manichaean
   principles, are directed the book Ad Paulum Orosium contra
   Priscillianistas et Origenistas (411); [2177] the book Contra
   mendacium, addressed to Consentius (420); and in part the 190th Epistle
   (alias Ep. 157), to the bishop Optatus, on the origin of the soul
   (418), and two other letters, in which he refutes erroneous views on
   the nature of the soul, the limitation of future punishments, and the
   lawfulness of fraud for supposed good purposes.

   3. The anti-Donatistic works, composed between the years 393 and 420,
   argue against separatism, and contain Augustine's doctrine of the
   church and church-discipline, and of the sacraments. To these belong:
   Psalmus contra partem Donati (a.d. 393), a polemic popular song without
   regular metre, intended to offset the songs of the Donatists; Contra
   epistolam Parmeniani, written in 400 against the Carthaginian bishop of
   the Donatists, the successor of Donatus; De baptismo contra Donatistas,
   in favor of the validity of heretical baptism (400); Contra literas
   Petiliani (about 400), against the view of Cyprian and the Donatists,
   that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the personal worthiness
   and the ecclesiastical status of the officiating priest; Ad Catholicos
   Epistola contra Donatistas, vulgo De unitate ecclesiae (402); Contra
   Cresconium grammaticum Donatistam (406); Breviculus collationis cum
   Donatistis, a short account of the three-days' religious conference
   with the Donatists (411); De correctione Donatistarum (417); Contra
   Gaudentium, Donat. Episcopum, the last anti-Donatistic work (420).
   [2178]

   4. The anti-Arian works have to do with the deity of Christ and of the
   Holy Ghost, and with the Holy Trinity. By far the most important of
   these are the fifteen books De Trinitate (400-416);--the most profound
   and discriminating production of the ancient church on the Trinity, in
   no respect inferior to the kindred works of Athanasius and the two
   Gregories, and for centuries final to the dogma. [2179] This may also
   be counted among the positive didactic works, for it is not directly
   controversial. The Collatio cum Maximino Ariano, an obscure babbler,
   belongs to the year 428.

   5. The numerous anti-Pelagian works of Augustine are his most
   influential and most valuable. They were written between the years 412
   and 429. In them Augustine, in his intellectual and spiritual prime,
   developes his system of anthropology and soteriology, and most nearly
   approaches the position of evangelical Protestantism: On the Guilt and
   the Remission of Sins, and Infant Baptism (412); On the Spirit and the
   Letter (413); On Nature and Grace (415); On the Acts of Pelagius (417);
   On the Grace of Christ, and Original Sin (418); On Marriage and
   Concupiscence (419); On Grace and Free Will (426); On Discipline and
   Grace (427); Against Julian of Eclanum (two large works, written
   between 421 and 429, the Second unfinished, and hence called Opus
   imperfectum); On the Predestination of the Saints (428); On the Gift of
   Perseverance (429); &c. [2180]

   VI. Exegetical works. The best of these are: De Genesi ad literam (The
   Genesis word for word), in twelve books, an extended exposition of the
   first three chapters of Genesis, particularly the history of the
   creation literally interpreted, though with many mystical and
   allegorical interpretations also (written between 401 and 415); [2181]
   Enarrationes in Psalmos (mostly sermons); [2182] the hundred and
   twenty-four Homilies on the Gospel of John (416 and 417); [2183] the
   ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John (417); the Exposition of the
   Sermon on the Mount (393); the Harmony of the Gospels (De consensu
   evangelistarum, 400); the Epistle to the Galatians (394); and the
   unfinished commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. [2184]

   Augustine deals more in lively, profound, and edifying thoughts on the
   Scriptures than in proper grammatical and historical exposition, for
   which neither he nor his readers had the necessary linguistic
   knowledge, disposition, or taste. He grounded his theology less upon
   exegesis than upon his Christian and churchly mind, saturated with
   Scriptural truths.

   VII. Ethical or Practical and Ascetic works. Among these belong three
   hundred and ninety-six Sermones (mostly very short) de Scripturis (on
   texts of Scripture), de tempore (festival sermons), de sanctis (in
   memory of apostles, martyrs, and saints), and de diversis (on various
   occasions), some of them dictated by Augustine, some taken down by
   hearers. [2185] Also various moral treatises: De continentia (395); De
   mendacio (395), against deception (not to be confounded with the
   similar work already mentioned Contra mendacium, against the
   fraud-theory of the Priscillianists, written in 420); De agone
   Christiano (396); De opere monachorum, against monastic idleness (400);
   De bono conjugali adv. Jovinianum (400); De virginitate (401); De fide
   et operibus (413); De adulterinis conjugiis, on 1 Cor. vii. 10 sqq.
   (419); De bono viduitatis (418); De patientia (418); De cura pro
   mortuis gerenda, to Paulinus of Nola (421); De utilitate jejunii; De
   diligendo Deo; Meditationes; etc. [2186]

   As we survey, this enormous literary labor, augmented by many other
   treatises and letters now lost, and as we consider his episcopal
   labors, his many journeys, and his adjudications of controversies among
   the faithful, which often robbed him of whole days, we must be really
   astounded at the fidelity, exuberance, energy, and perseverance of this
   father of the church. Surely, such a life was worth the living.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2158] Ellies Dupin(Bibliothèque ecclésiastique, tom. iii. lrepartie,
   p. 818) and Nourrisson(l.c. tom. ii. p. 449) apply to Augustinethe term
   magnus opinator, which Cicero used of himself. There is, however, this
   important difference that Augustine, along with his many opinions on
   speculative questions in philosophy and theology, had very positive
   convictions in all essential doctrines, while Cicero was a mere
   ecclectic in philosophy.

   [2159] Possidiuscounts in all, including sermons and letters, one
   thousand and thirty writings of Augustine. On these see, above all, his
   Retractations, where he himself reviews ninety-three of his works
   (embracing two hundred and thirty-two books, see ii. 67), in
   chronological order; in the first book those which he wrote while a
   layman and presbyter, in the second those which he wrote when a bishop.
   Also the extended chronological index in Schönemann'sBiblioth.
   historico-literaria Patrum Latinorum, vol. ii. (Lips. 1794), p. 340
   spq. (reprinted in the supplemental volume, xii., of Migne's ed. of the
   Opera, p. 24 sqq.); and other systematic and alphabetical lists in the
   eleventh volume of the Bened. ed. (p. 494 sqq., ed. Venet.), and in
   Migne, tom. xi.

   [2160] For this reason the Benedictine editors have placed the
   Retractations and the Confessions at the head of his works.

   [2161] He himself says of them, Retract. l. ii. c. 6: "Multis fratribus
   eos [Confessionum libros tredecim] multum placuisse et placere scio."
   Comp. De dono perseverantiae, c. 20: "Quid autem meorum opusculorum
   frequentius et delectabilius innotescere potuit quam libri Confessionum
   mearum?" Comp. Ep. 231 Dario comiti.

   [2162] Schönemann(in the supplemental volume of Migne's ed. of
   Augustine, p. 134 sqq.) cites a multitude of separate editions of the
   Confessions in Latin, Italian, spanish, Portuguese, French, English,
   and German, from a.d.1475 to 1776. Since that time several new editions
   have been added. There are German translations by H. Kautz(R.C.,
   Arnsberg, 1840), G. Rapp(Prot., 2d ed., Stuttg., 1847), and others. The
   best English edition is that of Dr. E. B. Pusey: The Confessions of S.
   Angustine, Oxford (first in 1838, as the first volume in the Oxf.
   Library of the Fathers, together with an edition of the Latin
   original). It is, however, as Dr. Pusey says, only a revision of the
   translation of Rev. W. Watts, D. D., London, 1650, accompanied with a
   long preface (pp. i-xxxv) and elucidations from Augustine's works in
   notes and at the end (pp. 314-346). The edition of Dr. W. G. T. Shedd,
   Andover, 1860, is, as he says, "a reprint of an old translation by an
   author unknown to the editor, which was republished in Boston in 1843."
   A cursory comparison shows, that this anonymous Boston reprint agrees
   almost word for word with Pusey's revision of Watts, omitting his
   introduction and all his notes. Dr. Shedd has, however, added an
   excellent original introduction, in which he clearly and vigorously
   characterizes the Confessions and draws a comparison between them and
   the Confessions of Rousseau. He calls the former (p. xxvii) not inaptly
   the best commentary yet written upon the seventh and eighth chapters of
   Romans. "That quickening of the human spirit, which puts it again into
   vital and sensitive relations to the holy and eternal; that
   illumination of the mind, whereby it is enabled to perceive with
   clearness the real nature of truth and righteousness; that empowering
   of the will, to the conflict of victory--the entire process of
   restoring the Divine image in the soul of man--is delineated in this
   book, with a vividness and reality never exceeded by the uninspired
   mind." ... "It is the life of God in the soul of a strong man, rushing
   and rippling with the freedom of the life of nature. He who watches can
   almost see the growth; he who listens can hear the perpetual motion;
   and he who is in sympathy will be swept along."

   [2163] Nourrisson(l.c. tom. i. p. 19) calls the Confessions "cet
   ouvrage unique, souvent imité, toujours parodié, où il s'accuse se
   condamne et s'humilie, prière ardente, récit entraînant, métaphysique
   incomparable, histoire de tout un monde qui se reflète dans l'histoire
   d'une âme."

   [2164] Prov. x. 19. This verse (ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum)
   the Semi-Pelagian Gennadius (De viris illustr. sub Aug.) applies
   against Augustinein excuse for his erroneous doctrines of freedom and
   predestination.

   [2165] Matt. xii. 36.

   [2166] 1 Cor. xi. 31. Comp. his Prologus to the two books of
   Retractationes.

   [2167] J. Morell Mackenzie (in W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman
   Biography and Mythology, vol. i. p. 422) happily calls the
   Retractations of Augustineone of the noblest sacrifices ever laid upon
   the altar of truth by a majestic intellect acting in obedience to the
   purest conscientiousness."

   [2168] In tom. i. of the ed. Bened., immediately after the
   Retractationes and Confessiones, and at the close of the volume. On
   these philosophical writings, see Brucker: Historia critics
   Philosophiae, Lips. 1766, tom. iii. pp. 485-507; H. Ritter: Geschichte
   der Philosophie, vol. vi. p. 153 ff.; Bindemann, l. c. p. 282 sqq.;
   Huber, l. c. p. 242 sqq.; Gangauf, l.c. p. 25 sqq., and Nourrison, l.c.
   ch. i. and ii. Nourrison makes the just remark (i. p. 53): "Si la
   philosophie est la recherche de la verité, jamais sans doute il ne
   s'est rencontré une âme plus philosophe que celle de saint Augustin.
   Car jamais âme n'a supporté avec plus d'impatience les anxiétés du
   doute et n'a fait plus d'efforts pour dissiper les fantômes de
   l'erreur."

   [2169]  Or on the question: "Utrum omnia bona et mala divinae
   providentiae ordo contineat ? " Comp. Retract. i. 3.

   [2170] Augustine, in his Confessions (I. ix. c. 6), expresses himself
   in this touching way about this son of his illicit love: "We took with
   us [on returning from the country to Milan to receive the sacrament of
   baptism] also the boy Adeodatus, the son of my carnal sin. Thou hadst
   formed him well. He was but just fifteen years old, and he was superior
   in mind to many grave and learned men. I acknowledge Thy gifts, O Lord,
   my God, who createst all, and who canst reform our deformities; for I
   had no part in that boy but sin. And when we brought him up in Thy
   nurture, Thou, only Thou, didst prompt us to it; I acknowledge Thy
   gifts. There is my book entitled, De Magistro; he speaks with me there.
   Thou knowest that all things there put into his mouth were in his mind
   when he was sixteen years of age. That maturity of mind was a terror to
   me; and who but Thou is the artificer of such wonders? Soon Thou didst
   take his life from the earth; and I think more quietly of him now,
   fearing no more for his boyhood, nor his youth, nor his whole life. We
   took him to ourselves as one of the same age in Thy grace, to be
   trained in Thy nurture; and we were baptized together; and all trouble
   about the past fled from us."

   [2171] The books on grammar, dialectics, rhetoric, and the ten
   Categories of Aristotle, in the Appendix to the first volume of the
   Bened. ed., are spurious. For the genuine works of Augustineon these
   subjects were written in a different form (the dialogue) and for a
   higher purpose, and were lost in his own day. Comp. Retract. i. c. 6.
   In spite of this, Prantl(Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, pp.
   665-674, cited by Huber, l.c. p. 240) has advocated the genuineness of
   the Principia dialecticae, and Huberinclines to agree. Gangauf, l.c. p.
   5, and Nourrisson, i. p. 37, consider them spurious.

   [2172]  He mathesis ouk allo ti e anamnesis . On his Plato, in the
   Phaedo, as is well known, rests his doctrine of pre-existence.
   Augustinewas at first in favor of the idea, Solil. ii. 20, n. 35;
   afterwards he rejected it, Retract. i. 4, § 4.

   [2173] In the Bened. ed. tom. vii. Comp. Retract. ii. 43, and above, §
   12. The City of God and the Confessions are the only writings of
   Augustinewhich Gibbonthought good to read (chap. xxxiii.). Huber(l.c.
   p. 315) says: "Augustine's philosophy of history, as he presents it in
   his Civitas Dei, has remained to this hour the standard philosophy of
   history for the church orthodoxy, the bounds of which this orthodoxy,
   unable to perceive in the motions of the modern spirit the fresh
   morning air of a higher day of history, is scarcely able to transcend."
   Nourrissondevotes a special chapter to the consideration of the two
   cities of Augustine, the City of the World and the City of God (tom.
   ii. 43-88). Compare also the Introduction to Saisset'sTraduction de la
   Cité de Dieu, Par. 1855.

   [2174] This work is also incorporated in the Corpus haereseologicum of
   Fr. Oehler, tom. i. pp. 192-225.

   [2175] Comp. Contra Epist. Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, l. i. 2.

   [2176] The earliest anti-Manichaean writings (De libero arbitrio; De
   moribus eccl. cath. et de moribus Manich.) are in tom. i. ed. Bened.;
   the latter in tom. viii.

   [2177] Tom. viii. p. 611 sqq.

   [2178] All these in tom. lx. Comp. above, §§ 69 and 70.

   [2179] Tom. viii. ed. Bened. p. 749 sqq. Comp. § 131, above. The work
   was stolen from him by some impatient friends before revision, and
   before the completion of the twelfth book, so that he became much
   discouraged, and could only be moved to finish it by urgent entreaties.

   [2180] Opera, tom. x., in two parts, with an Appendix. The same in
   Migne. Comp.146-160, above.

   [2181] Tom. iii. 117-324. Not to be confounded with two other books on
   Genesis, in which he defends the biblical doctrine of creation against
   the Manichaeans. In this exegetical work he aimed, as he says, Retract.
   ii. c. 24, to interpret Genesis "non secundum allegoricas
   significationes, sed secundum rerum gestarum proprietatem." The work is
   more original and spirited than the Hexaëmeron of Basil or of Ambrose.

   [2182] Tom. iv., the whole volume.

   [2183] Tom. iii., 289-824.

   [2184] All in tom. iii.

   [2185] Tom. v., which contains besides these a multitude (317) of
   doubtful and spurious sermons, likewise divided into four classes. To
   these must be added recently discovered sermons, edited from
   manuscripts in Florence, Monte Cassino, etc., by M. Denis(1792), O. F.
   Frangipane(1820), A. L. Caillau(Paris, 1836), and Angelo Mai(in the
   Nova Bibliotheca Patrum).

   [2186] Most of them in tom. vi. ed. Bened. On the scripta deperdita,
   dubia et spuria of Augustine, see the index by Schönemann, l.c. p. 50
   sqq., and in the supplemental volume of Migne's edition, pp. 34-40. The
   so-called Meditations of Augustine(German translation by August Krohne,
   Stuttgart, 1854) are a later compilation by the abbot of Fescamp in
   France, at the close of the twelfth century, from the writings of
   Augustine, Gregory the Great, Anselm, and others.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 180. The Influence of Augustine upon Posterity and his Relation to
   Catholicism and Protestantism.

   Before we take leave of this imposing character, and of the period of
   church history in which he shines as the brightest star, we must add
   some observations respecting the influence of Augustine on the world
   since his time, and his position with reference to the great antagonism
   of Catholicism and Protestantism. All the church fathers are, indeed,
   the common inheritance of both parties; but no other of them has
   produced so permanent effects on both, and no other stands in so high
   regard with both, as Augustine. Upon the Greek church alone has he
   exercised little or no influence; for this church stopped with the
   undeveloped synergistic anthropology of the previous age. [2187]

   1. Augustine, in the first place, contributed much to the development
   of the doctrinal basis which Catholicism and Protestantism hold in
   common against such radical heresies of antiquity, as Manichaeism,
   Arianism, and Pelagianism. In all these great intellectual conflicts he
   was in general the champion of the cause of Christian truth against
   dangerous errors. Through his influence the canon of Holy Scripture
   (including, indeed, the Old Testament Apocrypha) was fixed in its
   present form by the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). He
   conquered the Manichaean dualism, hylozoism, and fatalism, and saved
   the biblical idea of God and of creation and the biblical doctrine of
   the nature of sin and its origin in the free will of man. He developed
   the Nicene dogma of the Trinity, completed it by the doctrine of the
   double procession of the Holy Ghost, and gave it the form in which it
   has ever since prevailed in the West, and in which it received
   classical expression from his school in the Athanasian Creed. In
   Christology, on the contrary, he added nothing, and he died shortly
   before the great Christological conflicts opened, which reached their
   ecumenical settlement at the council of Chalcedon, twenty years after
   his death. Yet he anticipated Leo in giving currency in the West to the
   important formula: "Two natures in one person." [2188]

   2. Augustine is also the principal theological creator of the
   Latin-Catholic system as distinct from the Greek Catholicism on the one
   hand, and from evangelical Protestantism on the other. He ruled the
   entire theology of the middle age, and became the father of
   scholasticism in virtue of his dialectic mind, and the father of
   mysticism in virtue of his devout heart, without being responsible for
   the excesses of either system. For scholasticism thought to comprehend
   the divine with the understanding, and lost itself at last in empty
   dialectics; and mysticism endeavored to grasp the divine with feeling,
   and easily strayed into misty sentimentalism; Augustine sought to
   apprehend the divine with the united power of mind and heart, of bold
   thought and humble faith. [2189] Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas
   Aquinas, and Bonaventura, are his nearest of kin in this respect. Even
   now, since the Catholic church has become a Roman church, he enjoys
   greater consideration in it than Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, or Gregory
   the Great. All this cannot possibly be explained without an interior
   affinity. [2190]

   His very conversion, in which, besides the Scriptures, the personal
   intercourse of the hierarchical Ambrose and the life of the ascetic
   Anthony had great influence, was a transition not from heathenism to
   Christianity (for he was already a Manichaean Christian), but from
   heresy to the historical, episcopally organized church, as, for the
   time, the sole authorized vehicle of the apostolic Christianity in
   conflict with those sects and parties which more or less assailed the
   foundations of the gospel. [2191] It was, indeed, a full and
   unconditional surrender of his mind and heart to God, but it was at the
   same time a submission of his private judgment to the authority of the
   church which led him to the faith of the gospel. [2192] In the same
   spirit he embraced the ascetic life, without which, according to the
   Catholic principle, no high religion is possible. He did not indeed
   enter a cloister, like Luther, whose conversion in Erfurt was likewise
   essentially catholic, but he lived in his house in the simplicity of a
   monk, and made and kept the vow of voluntary poverty and celibacy.
   [2193]

   He adopted Cyprian's doctrine of the church, and completed it in the
   conflict with Donatism by transferring the predicates of unity,
   holiness, universality, exclusiveness, and maternity, directly to the
   actual church of the time, which, with a firm episcopal organization,
   an unbroken succession, and the Apostles' Creed, triumphantly withstood
   the eighty or the hundred opposing sects in the heretical catalogue of
   the day, and had its visible centre in Rome. In this church he had
   found rescue from the shipwreck of his life, the home of true,
   Christianity, firm ground for his thinking, satisfaction for his heart,
   and a commensurate field for the wide range of his powers. The
   predicate of infallibility alone he does not plainly bring forward; he
   assumes a progressive correction of earlier councils by later; and in
   the Pelagian controversy he asserts the same independence towards pope
   Zosimus, which Cyprian before him had shown towards pope Stephen in the
   controversy on heretical baptism, with the advantage of having the
   right on his side, so that Zosimus found himself compelled to yield to
   the African church. [2194]

   He was the first to give a clear and fixed definition of the sacrament,
   as a visible sign of invisible grace, resting on divine appointment;
   but he knows nothing of the number seven; this was a much later
   enactment. In the doctrine of baptism he is entirely Catholic, [2195]
   though in logical contradiction with his dogma of predestination; but
   in the doctrine of the holy communion he stands, like his predecessors,
   Tertullian and Cyprian, nearer to the Calvinistic theory of a spiritual
   presence and fruition of Christ's body and blood. He also contributed
   to promote, at least in his later writings, the Catholic faith of
   miracles, [2196] and the worship of Mary; [2197] though he exempts the
   Virgin only from actual sin, not from original, and, with all his
   reverence for her, never calls her mother of God. [2198]

   At first an advocate of religious liberty and of purely spiritual
   methods of opposing error, he afterwards asserted the fatal principle
   of the coge intrare, and lent the great weight of his authority to the
   system of civil persecution, at the bloody fruits of which in the
   middle age he himself would have shuddered; for he was always at heart
   a man of love and gentleness, and personally acted on the glorious
   principle: "Nothing conquers but truth, and the victory of truth is
   love." [2199]

   Thus even truly great and good men have unintentionally, through
   mistaken zeal, become the authors of much mischief.

   3. But, on the other hand, Augustine is, of all the fathers, nearest to
   evangelical Protestantism, and may be called, in respect of his
   doctrine of sin and grace, the first forerunner of the Reformation. The
   Lutheran and Reformed churches have ever conceded to him, without
   scruple, the cognomen of Saint, and claimed him as one of the most
   enlightened witnesses of the truth and most striking examples of the
   marvellous power of divine grace in the transformation of a sinner. It
   is worthy of mark, that his Pauline doctrines, which are most nearly
   akin to Protestantism, are the later and more mature parts of his
   system, and that just these found great acceptance with the laity. The
   Pelagian controversy, in which he developed his anthropology, marks the
   culmination of his theological and ecclesiastical career, and his
   latest writings were directed against the Pelagian Julian and the
   Semi-Pelagians in Gaul, who were brought to his notice by the two
   friendly laymen, Prosper and Hilary. These anti-Pelagian works have
   wrought mightily, it is most true, upon the Catholic church, and have
   held in check the Pelagianizing tendencies of the hierarchical and
   monastic system, but they have never passed into its blood and marrow.
   They waited for a favorable future, and nourished in silence an
   opposition to the prevailing system.

   Even in the middle age the better sects, which attempted to simplify,
   purify, and spiritualize the reigning Christianity by return to the
   Holy Scriptures, and the reformers before the Reformation such as
   Wiclif, Russ, Wessel, resorted most, after the apostle Paul, to the
   bishop of Hippo as the representative of the doctrine of free grace.

   The Reformers were led by his writings into a deeper understanding of
   Paul, and so prepared for their great vocation. No church teacher did
   so much to mould Luther and Calvin; none furnished them so powerful
   weapons against the dominant Pelagianism and formalism; none is so
   often quoted by them with esteem and love. [2200]

   All the Reformers in the outset, Melancthon and Zwingle among them,
   adopted his denial of free will and his doctrine of predestination, and
   sometimes even went beyond him into the abyss of supralapsarianism, to
   cut out the last roots of human merit and boasting. In this point
   Augustine holds the same relation to the Catholic church, as Luther to
   the Lutheran; that is, he is a heretic of unimpeachable authority, who
   is more admired than censured even in his extravagances; yet his
   doctrine of predestination was indirectly condemned by the pope in
   Jansenism, as Luther's view was rejected as Calvinism by the Form of
   Concord. [2201] For Jansenism was nothing but a revival of
   Augustinianism in the bosom of the Roman Catholic church. [2202]

   The excess of Augustine and the Reformers in this direction is due to
   the earnestness and energy of their sense of sin and grace. The
   Pelagian looseness could never beget a reformer. It was only the
   unshaken conviction of man's own inability, of unconditional dependence
   on God, and of the almighty power of his grace to give us strength for
   every good work, which could do this. He who would give others the
   conviction that he has a divine vocation for the church and for
   mankind, must himself be penetrated with the faith of an eternal,
   unalterable decree of God, and must cling to it in the darkest hours.

   In great men, and only in great men, great opposites and apparently
   antagonistic truths live together. Small minds cannot hold them. The
   catholic, churchly, sacramental, and sacerdotal system stands in
   conflict with the evangelical Protestant Christianity of subjective,
   personal experience. The doctrine of universal baptismal regeneration,
   in particular, which presupposes a universal call (at least within the
   church), can on principles of logic hardly be united with the doctrine
   of an absolute predestination, which limits the decree of redemption to
   a portion of the baptized. Augustine supposes, on the one hand, that
   every baptized person, through the inward operation of the Holy Ghost,
   which accompanies the outward act of the sacrament, receives the
   forgiveness of sins, and is translated from the state of nature into
   the state of grace, and thus, qua baptizatus, is also a child of God
   and an heir of eternal life; and yet, on the other hand, he makes all
   these benefits dependent on the absolute will of God, who saves only a
   certain number out of the "mass of perdition," and preserves these to
   the end. Regeneration and election, with him, do not, as with Calvin,
   coincide. The former may exist without the latter, but the latter
   cannot exist without the former. Augustine assumes that many are
   actually born into the kingdom of grace only to perish again; Calvin
   holds that in the case of the non-elect baptism is an unmeaning
   ceremony; the one putting the delusion in the inward effect, the other
   in the outward form. The sacramental, churchly system throws the main
   stress upon the baptismal regeneration to the injury of the eternal
   election; the Calvinistic and Puritan system sacrifices the virtue of
   the sacrament to the election; the Lutheran and Anglican system seeks a
   middle ground, without being able to give a satisfactory theological
   solution of the problem. The Anglican church allows the two opposite
   views, and sanctions the one in the baptismal service of the Book of
   Common Prayer, the other in her Thirty-nine Articles, which are
   moderately Calvinistic.

   It was an evident ordering of God, that the Augustinian system, like
   the Latin Bible of Jerome, appeared just in that transitional period of
   history, in which the old civilization was passing away before the
   flood of barbarism, and a new order of things, under the guidance of
   the, Christian religion, was in preparation. The church, with her
   strong, imposing organization and her firm system of doctrine, must
   save Christianity amidst the chaotic turmoil of the great migration,
   and must become a training-school for the barbarian nations of the
   middle age. [2203]

   In this process of training, next to the Holy Scriptures, the
   scholarship of Jerome and the theology and fertile ideas of Augustine
   were the most important intellectual agent.

   Augustine was held in so universal esteem that he could exert influence
   in all directions, and even in his excesses gave no offence. He was
   sufficiently catholic for the principle of church authority, and yet at
   the same time so free and evangelical that he modified its hierarchical
   and sacramental character, reacted against its tendencies to outward,
   mechanical ritualism, and kept alive a deep consciousness of sin and
   grace, and a spirit of fervent and truly Christian piety, until that
   spirit grew strong enough to break the shell of hierarchical tutelage,
   and enter a new stage of its development. No other father could have
   acted more beneficently on the Catholicism of the middle age, and more
   successfully provided for the evangelical Reformation than St.
   Augustine, the worthy successor of Paul, and the precursor of Luther
   and Calvin.

   Had he lived at the time of the Reformation, he would in all
   probability have taken the lead of the evangelical movement against the
   prevailing Pelagianism of the Roman church. For we must not forget
   that, notwithstanding their strong affinity, there is an important
   difference between Catholicism and Romanism or popery. They sustain a
   similar relation to each other as the Judaism of the Old Testament
   dispensation, which looked to, and prepared the way for, Christianity,
   and the Judaism after the crucifixion and after the destruction of
   Jerusalem, which is antagonistic to Christianity. Catholicism covers
   the entire ancient and mediaeval history of the church, and includes
   the Pauline, Augustinian, or evangelical tendencies which increased
   with the corruptions of the papacy and the growing sense of the
   necessity of a "reformatio in capite et membris." Romanism proper dates
   from the council of Trent, which gave it symbolical expression and
   anathematized the doctrines of the Reformation. Catholicism is the
   strength of Romanism, Romanism is the weakness of Catholicism.
   Catholicism produced Jansenism, popery condemned it. Popery never
   forgets and never learns anything, and can allow no change in doctrine
   (except by way of addition), without sacrificing its fundamental
   principle of infallibility, and thus committing suicide. But
   Catholicism may ultimately burst the chains of popery which have so
   long kept it confined, and may assume new life and vigor.

   Such a personage as Augustine, still holding a mediating place between
   the two great divisions of Christendom, revered alike by both, and of
   equal influence with both, is furthermore a welcome pledge of the
   elevating prospect of a future reconciliation of Catholicism and
   Protestantism in a higher unity, conserving all the truths, losing all
   the errors, forgiving all the sins, forgetting all the enmities of
   both. After all, the contradiction between authority and freedom, the
   objective and the subjective, the churchly and the personal, the
   organic and the individual, the sacramental and the experimental in
   religion, is not absolute, but relative and temporary, and arises not
   so much from the nature of things, as from the deficiencies of man's
   knowledge and piety in this world. These elements admit of an ultimate
   harmony in the perfect state of the church, corresponding to the union
   of the divine and human natures, which transcends the limits of finite
   thought and logical comprehension, and is yet completely realized in
   the person of Christ. They are in fact united in the theological system
   of St. Paul, who had the highest view of the church, as the mystical
   "body of Christ," and "the pillar and ground of the truth," and who was
   at the same time the great champion of evangelical freedom, individual
   responsibility, and personal union of the believer with his Saviour. We
   believe in and hope for one holy catholic apostolic church, one
   communion of saints, one fold, and one Shepherd. The more the different
   churches become truly Christian, or draw nearer to Christ, and the more
   they give real effect to His kingdom, the nearer will they come to one
   another. For Christ is the common head and vital centre of all
   believers, and the divine harmony of all discordant human sects and
   creeds. In Christ, says Pascal, one of the greatest and noblest
   disciples of Augustine, In Christ all contradictions are solved.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2187] It betrays a very contracted, slavish, and mechanical view of
   history, when Roman Catholic divines claim the fathers as their
   exclusive property; forgetting that they taught a great many things
   which are as inconsistent with the papal as with the Protestant Creed,
   and knew nothing of certain dogmas (such as the infallibility of the
   pope, the seven sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences,
   auricular confession, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary,
   etc.), which are essential to Romanism. "I recollect well," says Dr.
   Newman, the former intellectual leader of Oxford Tractarianism (in his
   Letter to Dr. Pusey on his Eirenicon, 1866, p. 5), "what an outcast I
   seemed to myself, when I took down from the shelves of my library the
   volumes of St. Athanasius or St. Basil, and set myself to study them;
   and how, on the contrary, when at length I was brought into Catholic
   communion, I kissed them with delight, with a feeling that in them I
   had more than all that I had lost, and, as though I were directly
   addressing the glorious saints, who bequeathed them to the Church, I
   said to the inanimate pages, 'You are now mine, and I am yours, beyond
   any mistake.' " With the same right the Jews might lay exclusive claim
   to the writings of Moses and the prophets. The fathers were living men,
   representing the onward progress and conflicts of Christianity in their
   time, unfolding and defending great truths, but not unmixed with many
   errors and imperfections which subsequent times have corrected. Those
   are the true children of the fathers who, standing on the foundation of
   Christ and the apostles, and, kissing the New Testament rather than any
   human writings, follow them only as far as they followed Christ, and
   who carry forward their work in the onward march of true evangelical
   catholic Christianity.

   [2188] He was summoned to the council of Ephesus, which condemned
   Nestorianism in 431, but died a year before it met. He prevailed upon
   the Gallic monk, Leporius, to retract Nestorianism. His Christology is
   in many points defective and obscure. Comp. Dorner'sHistory of
   Christology, ii. pp. 90-98. Jeromedid still less for this department of
   doctrine.

   [2189] Wiggers(Pragmat. Darstellung des Augustinismus und
   Pelagianismus, i. p. 27) finds the most peculiar and remarkable point
   of Augustine's character in his singular union of intellect and
   imagination, scholasticism and mysticism, in which neither can be said
   to predominate. So also Huber, l.c. p. 313.

   [2190] Nourrisson, the able expounder of the philosophy of Augustine,
   says (I. c. tom. i. p. iv): "Je ne crois pas, qu'excepté saint Paul,
   aucun homme ait contribué davantage, par sa parole comme par ses
   écrits, à organiser, à interpréter, a répandre le christianisme; et,
   après saint Paul, nul apparemment, non pas même le glorieux,
   l'invincible Athanase, n'a travaillé d'une manière aussi puissante à
   fonder l'unité catholique."

   [2191] On the catholic and ascetic character of his conversion and his
   religion, see the observations in my work on Augustine, ch. viii., in
   the German edition.

   [2192] We recall his famous anti-Manichaean dictum: "Ego evangelio non
   crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas." The
   Protestant would reverse this maxim, and ground his faith in the church
   on his faith in Christ and in the gospel. So with the well-known maxim
   of Irenaeus: "Ubi ecclesia, ibi Spiritus Dei, et ubi Spiritus Dei, ibi
   ecclesia." According to the spirit of Protestantism it would be said
   conversely: "Where the Spirit of God is, there is the church, and where
   the church is, there is the Spirit of God."

   [2193] According to genuine Christian principles it would have been far
   more noble, if he had married the African woman with whom he had lived
   in illicit intercourse for thirteen years, who was always faithful to
   him, as he was to her, and had borne him his beloved and highly gifted
   Adeodatus; instead of casting her off, and, as he for a while intended,
   choosing another for the partner of his life, whose excellences were
   more numerous. The superiority of the evangelical Protestant morality
   over the Catholic asceticism is here palpable. But with the prevailing
   spirit of his age he would hardly have enjoyed so great regard, nor
   accomplished so much good, if he had been married. Celibacy was the
   bridge from the heathen degradation of marriage to the evangelical
   Christian exaltation and sanctification of the family life.

   [2194] On Augustine's doctrine of the church, see § 71, above, and
   especially the thorough account by R. Rothe: Anfänge der christl.
   Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, vol. i. (1837), pp. 679-711. "Augustine,"
   says he, "decidedly adopted Cyprian's conception [of the church] in all
   essential points. And once adopting it, he penetrated it in its whole
   depth with his wonderfully powerful and exuberant soul, and, by means
   of his own clear, logical mind, gave it the perfect and rigorous system
   which perhaps it still lacked" (p. 679 f)." Augustine's conception of
   the doctrine of the church was about standard for succeeding times" (p.
   685).

   [2195] Respecting Augustine's doctrine of baptism, see the thorough
   discussion in W. Wall'sHistory of Infant Baptism, vol. i. p. 173 ff.
   (Oxford ed. of 1862). His view of the slight condemnation of all
   unbaptized children contains the germ of the scholastic fancy of the
   limbus infantum and the poena damni, as distinct from the lower regions
   of hell and the poena sensus.

   [2196] In his former writings he expressed a truly philosophical view
   concerning miracles (De vera relig. c. 25, § 47; c. 50, § 98; De
   utilit. credendi, c. 16, § 34; De peccat. meritis et remiss. l. ii. c.
   32, § 52, and De civit Dei, xxii. c. 8); but in his Retract. l. i. c.
   14, § 5, he corrects or modifies a former remark in his book De utilit.
   credendi, stating that he did not mean to deny the continuance of
   miracles altogether, but only such great miracles as occurred at the
   time of Christ ("quia non tanta nec omnia, non quia nulla fiunt"). See
   above, §§ 87 and 88, and the instructive monograph of the younger
   Nitzsch(Lic. and Privatdocent in Berlin): Augustinus' Lehre vom Wunder,
   Berlin, 1865 (97 pp.).

   [2197] See above, §§ 81 and 82.

   [2198] Comp. Tract. in Evang. Joannis, viii, c. 9, where he says: "Cur
   ergo ait matri filius: Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? nondum venit hora
   mea (John ii. 4). Dominus noster Jesus Christus et Deus erat et homo:
   secundum quod Deus erat, matrem non habebat; secundum quod homo erat,
   habebat. Mater ergo [Maria] erat carnis, mater humanitatis, mater
   infirmitatis quam suscepit propter nos." This strict separation of the
   Godhead from the manhood of Jesus in his birth from the Virgin would
   have exposed Augustinein the East to the suspicion of Nestorianism. But
   he died a year before the council of Ephesus, at which Nestorius was
   condemned.

   [2199] See above, § 27, p. 144 f. He changed his view partly from his
   experience that the Donatists, in his own diocese, were converted to
   the catholic unity "timore legum imperialium," and were afterwards
   perfectly good Catholics. He adduces also a misinterpretation of Luke
   xiv. 23, and Prov. ix. 9: "Da sapienti occasionem et sapientior erit."
   Ep. 93, ad Vincentium Rogatistam, § 17 (tom. ii. p. 237 sq. ed.
   Bened.). But he expressly discouraged the infliction of death on
   heretics, and adjured the proconsul Donatus, Ep. 100, by Jesus Christ,
   not to repay the Donatists in kind. "Corrigi eos cupimus, non necari."

   [2200] Lutherpronounced upon the church fathers (with whom, however,
   excepting Augustine, he was but slightly acquainted) very condemnatory
   judgments, even upon Basil, Chrysostom, and Jerome(for Jeromehe had a
   downright antipathy, on account of his advocacy of fasts, virginity,
   and monkery); he was at times dissatisfied even with Augustine, because
   he after all did not find in him his sola fide, his articulus stantis
   et cadentis ecclesiae, and says of him: "Augustineoften erred; he
   cannot be trusted. Though he was good and holy, yet he, as well as
   other fathers, was wanting in the true faith." But this cursory
   utterance is overborne by numerous commendations; and all such
   judgments of Luther must be taken cum grano salis. He calls
   Augustinethe most pious, grave, and sincere of the fathers, the patron
   of divines, who taught a pure doctrine and submitted it in Christian
   humility to the Holy Scriptures, etc., and he thinks, if he had lived
   in the sixteenth century, he would have been a Protestant (si hoc
   seculo viveret, nobiscum sentiret), while Jeromewould have gone with
   Rome. Compare his singular but striking judgments on the fathers in
   Lutheri colloquia, ed. H. E. Bindseil, 1863, tom. iii. 149, and many
   other places. Gangauf, a Roman Catholic (a pupil of the philosopher
   Günther), concedes (l.c. p. 28, note 13) that Luther and Calvin built
   their doctrinal system mainly on Augustine, but, as he correctly
   thinks, with only partial right. Nourrisson, likewise a Roman Catholic,
   derives Protestantism from a corrupted (!) Augustinianism, and very
   superficially makes Lutheranism and Calvinism essentially to consist in
   the denial of the freedom of the will, which was only one of the
   questions of the Reformation. "On ne saurait le méconnaître, de
   l'Augustinianisme corrompu, mais enfin de l'Augustinianisme procède le
   Protestantisme. Car, sans parler de Wiclef et de Huss, qui, nourris de
   saint Augustin, soutiennent, avec le réalisme platonicien, la doctrine
   de la prédestination; Luther et Calvin ne font guére autre chose, dans
   leurs Principaux ouvages, que cultiver des semences d'Augustinianisme"
   (l.c. ii. p. 176). But the Reformation is far more, of course, than a
   repristination of an old controversy; it is a new creation, and marks
   the epoch of modern Christianity which is different both from the
   mediaeval and from ancient or patristic Christianity.

   [2201] It is well known that Luther, as late as 1526, in his work, De
   servo arbitrio, against Erasmus, which he never retracted, proceeded
   upon the most rigorous notion of the divine omnipotence, wholly denied
   the freedom of the will, declared it a mere lie (merum mendacium),
   pronounced the calls of the Scriptures to repentance a divine irony,
   based eternal salvation and eternal perdition upon the secret will of
   God, and almost exceeded Calvin. See particulars in the books on
   doctrine-history; the inaugural dissertation of Jul. Müller: Lutheri de
   praedestinatione et libero arbitrio doctrina, Gott. 1832; and a
   historical treatise on predestination by Carl Beckin the Studien und
   Kritiken for 1847. We add, as a curiosity, the opinion of Gibbon(ch.
   xxxiii.), who, however, had a very limited and superficial knowledge of
   Augustine: "The rigid system of Christianity which he framed or
   restored, has been entertained, with public applause, and secret
   reluctance, by the Latin church. The church of Rome has canonized
   Augustine, and reprobated Calvin. Yet as the real difference between
   them is invisible even to a theological microscope, the Molinists are
   oppressed by the authority of the saint, and the Jansenists are
   disgraced by their resemblance to the heretic. In the mean while the
   Protestant Arminians stand aloof, and deride the mutual perplexity of
   the disputants. Perhaps a reasoner, still more independent, may smile
   in his tum when he peruses an Arminian commentary on the Epistle to the
   Romans." Nourrisson(ii. 179), from his Romish standpoint, likewise
   makes Lutheranism to consist "essentiellement dans la question du libre
   arbitre." But the principle of Lutheranism, and of Protestantism
   generally, is the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures as a rule of faith,
   and justification by free grace through faith in Christ.

   [2202] On the mighty influence of Augustinein the seventeenth century
   in France, especially on the noble Jansenists, see the works on
   Jansenism, and also Nourrisson, l.c. tom. ii. pp. 186-276.

   [2203] Guizot, the Protestant historian and statesman, very correctly
   says in his Histoire générale de la civilization en Europe (Deuxième
   leçon, p. 45 sq. ed. Bruxelles, 1850): "S'il n'eût pas été une église,
   je ne sais ce qui en serait avenu au milieu de la chute de l'empire
   romain .... Si le christianisme n'eût été comme dans les premiers
   temps, qu'une croyance, un sentiment, une conviction individuelle, on
   peut croire qu'il aurait succombé au milieu de la dissolution de
   l'empire et de l'invasion des barbares. Il a succombé plus tard, en
   Asie et dans tous le nord de l'Afrique, sous une invasion de méme
   nature, sous l'invasion des barbares musulmans; il a succombé alors,
   quoiqu'il fût à l'état d'institution, d'église constituée. A bien plus
   forte raison le même fait aurait pu arriver au moment de la chute de
   l'empire romain. Il n'y avait alors aucun des moyens par lesquels
   aujourd'hui les influences morales s'établissent ou' résistent
   indépendamment des institutions, aucun des moyens par lesquels une pure
   vérité, une pure idée acquiert un grand empire sur les esprits,
   gouverne les actions, détermine des événemens. Rien de semblable
   n'existait au IVesiècle, pour donner aux idées, aux sentiments
   personels, une pareille autorité. Il est clair qu'il fallait une
   société fortement organisée, fortement gouvernée, pour lutter contre un
   pareil désastre, pour sortir victorieuse d'un tel ouragan. Je no crois
   pas trop dire en affirmant qu'à la fin du IVeet au commencement du
   Vesiècle, c'est l'église chrétienne qui a sauvé le christianisme; c'est
   l'église avec ses institutions, ses magistrats, son pouvoir, qui s'est
   défendue vigoureusement contre la dissolution intérieure de l'empire,
   contre la barbarie, qui a conquis les barbares, qui est devenue le
   lien, le moyen, le principe de civilisation entre le monde romain et le
   monde barbare."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   APPENDIX TO THE REVISED EDITION, 1884.

   With new Additions, 1889.
     __________________________________________________________________

   ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

   [In the additions to the literature I have followed the method of
   italicizing book-titles and words in foreign languages, as in the
   revised edition of vols. i. and ii. The same method will be carried out
   in all subsequent volumes.]

   Page 11. Add To Literature On Constantine The Great:

   Th. Zahn: Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche. Hannover, 1876.
   Demetriades: Die christl. Regierung und Orthodoxie Kaiser Constantin's
   des Gr. Muenchen, 1878. Th. Brieger: Constantin der Gr. als
   Religionspolitiker. Gotha, 1880. E. L. Cutts: Constantine the Great.
   Lond. And N. Y., 1881. W. Gass: Konstantin der Gr. und seine Soehne, in
   Herzog,2 vii. (1881), 199-207. John Wordsworth: Const. the Gr. and his
   Sons, in Smith and Wace, i. 623-654. Edm. Stapfer: in Lichtenberger,
   iii. 388-393.--Comp. also vol. ii. p. 64-74, especially on the Edicts
   Of Toleration (only two, not three, as formerly assumed). Victor
   Schultze Geschichte des Untergangs des Griechisch-roemischen
   Heidenthums. Jena, 1887, Vol. i. 28-68.

   Page 40. Add To Lit, on the heathen sources:

   Juliani imperatoris Librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt.
   Collegit, recensuit, prolegomenis instruxit Car. Joa. Neumann. Insunt
   Cyrilli Alexandrini fragmenta syriaca ab Eberh. Nestle edita. Lips.,
   1880. Kaiser Julian's Buecher gegen die Christen. Nach ihrer
   Wiederherstellung uebersetzt von Karl Joh. Neumann. Leipzig, 1880. 53
   pages. This is Fasc. iii. of Scriptorum Graecorum qui Christianam
   impugnaverunt religionem quae supersunt, ed. by Neumann.

   Page 40, bottom of the page. Add to works on Julian the Apostate:

   Alb. De Broglie (R.C.), in the third and fourth vols. of his L'église
   et l'empire romain au quatrième siécle. Par., 4th ed., 1868. (Very
   full.) J. F. A. Muecke: Flavius Claudius Julianus. Nach den Quellen.
   Gotha, 1867 and 1869. 2 vols. (Full, painstaking, prolix, too much
   dependent on Ammianus, and partial to Julian.) Kellerbaum: Skizze der
   Vorgeschichte Julians, 1877. F. Rode: Gesch. der Reaction des Kaiser
   Julianus gegen die christl. Kirche. Jens, 1877. (Careful, partly
   against Teuffel and Muecke.) H. Adrien Naville: Julien l'apostate et sa
   philosophie du polythéisme. . Paris and Neuchatel, 1877. Comp. his art.
   in Lichtenbergers "Encyclop.," vii. 519-525. Torquati: Studii
   storico-critici sulla vita ... di Giuliano l'Apostata. Rom., 1878. G.
   H. Rendall: The Emperor Julian: Paganism and Christianity. Lond., 1879.
   J. G. E. Hoffmann: Jul. der Abtruennige, Syrische Erzaehlungen. Leiden,
   1880. (Old romances reflecting the feelings of the Eastern Christians.)
   Comp. also art. on Jul. in the "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., vol. xiii.
   768-770 (by Kirkup); in Herzog2, vii. 285-296 (by Harnack); in Smith
   and Wace, iii. 484-524 (by Prebendary John Wordsworth, very full and
   fair).

   Page 60. Add to literature:

   Tillemont: Hist. des empereurs, tom. v. A. De Broglie, l.c. Victor
   Schultze: Gesch. d. Untergangs des gr. roem. Heidenthums, i. 209-400.

   Page 81, last line, after Muenter, 1826, add:

   ; by C. Bursian, Lips., 1856; C. Halm, Vienna, 1867).

   Page 93. Add as footnote 3:

   3 Jerome, who was a shrewd observer of men and things, and witnessed
   the first effects of the union of church and state, says: "Ecclesia
   postquam ad Christianos principes venit, potentia quidem et divitiis
   major, sed virtutibus minor facta.'

   Page 148. Add at the bottom of the page:

   H. Weingarten: Der Ursprung des Moenchthums im nachconstantinischen
   Zeitalter. Gotha, 1877. See also his art. in Herzog2, x. 758 sqq. Ad.
   Harnack: Das Moenchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte. Giessen,
   1882.--Comp. vol. ii. ch. ix. p. 387 sqq.

   Page 226. Add to footnote:

   Ad. Franz, Marcus Aur. Cassiodorus Senator. Breslau, 1872.

   Page 242, i 50, add:

   See Lit. on clerical celibacy in vol. i. p. 403 sq., especially
   Theiner, Lea, and von Schulte.

   Page 314. Add to Lit. on Leo the Great:

   Friedrich (old Cath.): Zur aeltesten Geschichte des Primates in der
   Kirche. Bonn, 1879. Jos. Langen (old Cath.): Geschichte der roem.
   Kirche bis zum Pontificate Leo's I. Bonn, 1881. Karl Mueller in
   Herzog2, viii. (1881), 551-563. C. Gore, in Smith and Wace, iii.
   (1882), 652-673. By the same: Leo the Great (Lond. Soc. for Promoting
   Christ Knowledge, 175 pages). On the literary merits of Leo, see Ebert:
   Geschichte der christl. Lat. Lit., vol. i. 447-449.

   Page 329. .Add to § 64 the following:

   LIST OF POPES AND EMPERORS

   From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great, a.d. 314-590.

   Comp. the lists in vol. ii. 166 sqq., and vol. iv. 205 Sqq.

   This list is based upon Jaffé's Regesta, Potthast's Biblioth. Hist.
   Medii Aevi, and Cardinal Hergenröther's list, in his Kirchengesch.,
   third ed. (1886), vol. iii. 1057 sqq.

   Date

   Pope

   Emperor

   Date

   311-314

   Melchiades

   Constantine I, or The Great

   306 (323)-337

   314-335

   Silvester I

   336-337

   Marcus

   Constantine II (in Gaul)

   337-340

   337-352

   Julius I

   Constantius II (In the East)

   337-350

   Constans (In Italy)

   352-66

   Liberius

   357

   Filix II, Antipope

   Constantius Alone

   350-361

   Julian

   361-363

   Jovian

   363-364

   366-843

   Damasus

   Valentinian I

   364-375

   Valens

   364-378

   366-367

   Ursicinus, Antipope

   Gratian

   375-383

   Valentinian II (in the West)

   375-392

   385-398

   Siricius

   Theodosius

   379-395

   398-402

   Anastasius

   Arcadius (in the East)

   395-408

   402-417

   Innocent I

   Honorius (in the West)

   395-423

   417-418

   Zosimus

   Theodosius II (E.)

   408-450

   418-422

   Bonifacius

   (418 Dec. 27)

   (Eulalius, Antipope)

   422-432

   Coelestinus I

   Valentinian III (W.)

   423-455

   432-440

   Sixtus III

   440-461

   Leo I the Great

   Marcian (E.)

   450-457

   Maximus Avitus (W.)

   455-457

   Majorian (W.)

   457-461

   Leo I. (E.)

   457-474

   461-468

   Hilarus

   Severus (W.)

   461-465

   Vacancy (W.)

   465-467

   468-483

   Simplicius

   Anthemius (W.)

   467-472

   Olybrius (W.)

   472-473

   Glycerius (W.)

   473-474

   Julius Nepos (W.)

   474

   Page 330, line 8 from below, read after Hefele (R.C.):

   Conciliengeschichte, Freiburg i. B. 1855 sqq.; second revised ed. 1873
   sqq., 7 vols., down to the Council of Florence (1447).

   Page 353. Add to footnote:

   The reign of Pope Pius IX. has added another Council to the Latin list
   of oecumenical Councils, that of the Vatican, 1870, which is counted as
   the twentieth (by Bishop Hefele, in the revised edition of his
   Conciliengesch., i. 60), and which decreed the infallibility of the
   Pope in all his official utterances, thereby superseding the necessity
   of future oecumencal Councils. It has given rise to the Old Catholic
   secession, headed by eminent scholars such as Döllinger, Reinkens,
   Reusch, Langen. See the author's Creeds of Christendom, vol. i. 134
   sqq.

   Page 518. Add to Lit.

   C. A. Hammond: Antient Liturgies (with introduction, notes, and
   liturgical glossary). Oxford, 1878. Ch. A. Swainson: Greek Liturgies,
   chiefly from Original Sources. Cambridge, 1884.

   Page 541. § 103. Church Architecture:

   On the history of Architecture in general, see the works of Kugler:
   Geschichte der Baukunst (1859, 3 vols.); Schnaase: Gesch. der Kunst
   (1843-66, 8 vols.); Lübke History of Art (Eng. transl. New York, 1877,
   2 vols.); Viollet Le Duc: Lectures an Architecture (London, 1877), and
   his numerous works in French, including Dictionnaire De l'architecture
   Française (Paris, 1853-69, 10 vols.); James Fergusson: History of
   Architecture of all Countries from the earliest Times to the present
   (Lond., 1865; 2d ed., 1874, 4 vols.). On church architecture in
   particular: Richard Brown: Sacred Architecture; its Rise, Progress, and
   Present State (Lond., 1845); Kreuser: Der christl. Kirchenbau (Bonn,
   1851); Hübsch: Altchristl. Kirchen (Karlsruhe, 1858-61); De Vogüé:
   Architecture civile et relig. du Ie au VIIe siècle (Paris, 1877, 2
   vols.); Ch. E. Norton: Studies of Church Buildings in the Middle Ages
   (Now York, 1880). There are also special works on the basilicas in
   Rome, Constantinople, and Ravenna. See §§ 106 and 107.

   Page 560. § 109. Crosses and Crucifixes.

   Comp. the Lit. in vol. ii. §§ 75 and 77.

   Page 563. Add to Lit.

   Mrs. Jameson and Lady Eastlake: The History of Our Lord as exemplified
   in Works of Art (with illustrations). London, 1864; second ed. 1865. 2
   vols. Also the works on Christian Art, and on the Catacombs quoted in
   vol. ii. §§ 75 and 82.

   Page 622. Add to Lit., line 3 from below:

   Eugene Revillout: Le Concile de Nicée d'après les textes coptes et les
   diverses collections canoniques. Paris, 1881. The works on Arianism and
   on Athanasius include accounts of the Council of Nicaea. On the Nicene
   Creed and its literature, see Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, vol. i. 12
   sqq. and 24 sqq.; and the article of Ad. Harnack, in Herzog,2 vol.
   viii. (1881) 212-230, abridged in Schaff-Herzog (1886), ii. 1648 sqq.

   Page 651. Add to Lit., line 13:

   Theod. Zahn: Marcellus Von Ancyra. Gotha, 1867. (Zahn represents
   Marcellus as essentially orthodox and agreed with Irenaeus, but as
   seeking to gain a more simple and satisfactory conception of the truth
   from the Bible than the theology of the age presented. Neander,
   Dogmengesch., i. 275, had suggested a similar view.) W. Möller: Art.
   Marcellus in Herzog2 vol. ix. (1881), 279-282. (Partly in opposition to
   Zahn.) E. S. Ffoulkes, in Smith and Wace, iii. 808-813. (Ignores the
   works of Zahn and other German writers.)

   Page 689. § 132. The Athanasian Creed. Add to Lit.:

   A. P. Stanley: The Athanasian Creed. Lond., 1871. E. S. Ffoulkes: The
   Athanasian Creed. Lond., 1872. Ch. A. Heurtley: The Athanasian Creed.
   Oxf., 1872. (Against Ffoulkes.) J. R. Lumby: History of the Creeds.
   Cambridge, 1873; second ed. 1880. The Utrecht Psalter, a facsimile ed.,
   published in London, 1875. This contains the oldest MS. of the Athan.
   Creed, which by Ussher and Waterland was assigned to the sixth century,
   but by recent scholars to the ninth century. C. A. Swainson: The Nicene
   and Apostles' Creeds, together with an Account o f the Growth and
   Reception of the Creed of St. Athanasius. Lond., 1875. (Comp. his art.
   Creed in Smith and Wace, i. 711.) G. D. W. Ommaney: Early History of
   the Athan. Creed. An Examination of Recent Theories. Lond., 1875; 2d
   ed. 1880. Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, i. 34 sqq. and ii. 66-72, 555
   sq. (With a facsimile of the oldest MS. from the Utrecht Psalter.)

   Page 696.

   The statements concerning the origin and age of the Athanasian Creed
   should be conformed to the authors views as expressed in his work on
   Creeds, i. 36. The latest investigations do not warrant us to trace it
   higher than the eighth or seventh century. The first commentary on it
   ascribed to Venantius Fortunatus, 570, is of doubtful genuineness, and
   denied to him by Gieseler, Ffoulkes, and others. The majority of recent
   Anglican writers, including Stanley, Swainson, and Lumby, assign the
   Creed to an unknown author in Gaul between a.d. 750 and 850, probably
   during the reign of Charlemagne (d. 814). Hardy and Ommaney plead for
   an earlier date. The question is not yet fully settled. The Creed
   consists of two parts, one on the Trinity and one on the Incarnation,
   which were afterward welded together by a third hand. The second part
   was found separately as a fragment of a sermon on the Incarnation, at
   Treves, in a MS. from the middle of the eighth century, and was first
   published by Prof. Swainson, 1871, and again in 1875.

   Page 872. Add to Lit. on Eusebius:

   Fr. Ad. Heinichen: Eusebii Pamphili Scripta Historica. New ed. Lips.,
   1868-70. 3 Tom. The third vol. (804 pages) contains Commentarii et
   Meletemata. The ample indexes and critical and explanatory notes make
   this the most useful edition of the Church History and other historical
   works of Eusebius. Dindorf's ed., Lips., 1867 sqq., 4 vols., includes
   the two apologetic works. Best ed. of the Chronicle by Alfred Schöne:
   Eusebii Chronicorum libri II. Berol. 1866 and 1875. 2 Tom., 4°. Schöne
   was assisted by Petermann in the Armenian Version, and by Rödiger in
   the Syriac Epitome. He gives also the chronographeion suntomonof the
   year 853, the first part of which professes to be derived from the
   labors of Eusebius. Stein: Eusebius nach s. Leben, s. Schriften, und s.
   dogmatischen Charakter. Würzburg, 1859. Bishop Lightfoot: art. Eusebius
   of Caes. in Smith and Wace, vol. ii. (full and fair). Semisch: art.
   Eus. v. Caes. in Herzog,2 vol. iv. 390-398. A new translation of
   Eusebius, with commentary, by A. C. McGiffert, will appear, N. York,
   1890.

   Page 885. Add to Lit. on Athanasius:

   G. R. Sievers: Athanasii Vita acephala (written before 412, first publ.
   by Maffei, 1738). Ein Beitrag zur Gesch. des Athan. In the "Zeitschr.
   für Hist. Theol." (ed. by Kahnis). Gotha, 1868, pp. 89-162. Böhringer:
   Athanasius und Arius, in his Kirchengesch. in Biogr. Bd. vi., new ed.
   Leipz., 1874. Hergenröther (R.C.): Der heil. Athanas. der Gr. Cologne,
   1877 (an essay, pages 24). L. Atzberger: Die Logoslehre des heil.
   Athanas. München, 1880. W. Möller: Art. Athan. in Herzog,2 i. 740-747.
   Lüdtke: in Wetzer and Welte, 2 i. (1882), 1534-1543. Gwatkin: Studies
   in Arianism. Cambr. 1882.

   Page 890. Add to footnote at the bottom:

   Villemain considers Athanasius the greatest man between the Apostles
   and Gregory VII., and says of him: "Sa vie, ses combats, son génie
   servirent plus à l'agrandissement du christianisme que toute la
   puissance de Constantin .... Athanase cherche le triomphe, et non le
   martyre. Tel qu'un chef de parti, tel qu'un général experimenté qui se
   sent nécessaire aux siens, Athan. ne s'expose que pour le succès, ne
   combat que pour vaincre, se retire quelque fois pour reparaître avec
   l'éclat d'un triomphe populaire." (Tableau de l'éloquence chrétienne au
   IVe siècle, p. 92.)

   Page 894 line 11. Add to Lit. on St. Basil:

   Dörgens: Der heil. Basilius und die class. Studien. Leipz., 1857. Eug.
   Fialon. Étude historique et literaire sur S. Basile, suivie de
   l'hexaemeron. Paris, 1861. G. B. Sievers: Leben des Libanios. Berl.,
   1868 (p294 sqq.). Böhringer: Die drei Kappadozier oder die
   trinitarischen Epigonen (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Naz.),
   in Kirchengesch. in Biograph., new ed. Bd. vii. and viii. 1875. Weiss:
   Die drei grossen Kappadozier als Exegeten. Braunsberg, 1872. R. Travers
   Smith: St. Basil the Great. London, 1879. (Soc. for Promoting Christian
   Knowledge), 232 pages. Scholl: Des heil. Basil Lehre von der Gnade.
   Freib., 1881. W. Möller, in Herzog,2 ii. 116-121. E. Venables, in Smith
   and Wace, i. 282-297. Farrar: "Lives of the Fathers," 1889. vol. ii.
   1-55.

   Page 904 line 7. Add to Lit. on Gregory of Nyssa:

   Böhringer: Kirchengesch. in Biogr., new ed., vol. viii. 1876. G
   Herrmann: Greg. Nyss. Sententiae de salute adipiscenda. Halle, 1875. .
   T. Bergades: De universo et de anima hominis doctrina Gregor. Nyss.
   Leipz., 1876. W. Möller, in Herzog,2 v. 396-404. E. Venables, in Smith
   and Wace, ii. 761-768. A. Paumier, in Lichtenberger, 723-725. On his
   doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, see especially Baur
   and Dorner. On his doctrine of the apokatastasis and relation to
   Origen, see Möller, G. Herrmann, and Bergades. l.c. Farrar: "Lives of
   the Fathers," (1889), ii. 56-83.

   Page 909, line 4. Add to Lit. on Gregory of Nazianzus:

   A. Grenier: La vie et les poésies de saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Paris,
   1858. Böhringer: K. G. in Biogr., new ed., vol. viii. 1876. Abbé A.
   Benoît: Vie de saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Paris, 1877. J. R. Newman:
   Church of the Fathers, pp. 116-145, 551. Dabas: La femme au quatrième
   siècle dans les poésies de Grég. de Naz. Bordeaux, 1868. H. W. Watkins,
   in Smith and Wace, ii. 741-761. W. Gass, in Herzog,2 v. 392-396. A.
   Paumier, in Lichtenberger, v., 716-722. On his christology, see
   Neander, Baur and especially Dorner. His views on future punishment
   have been discussed by Farrar, and Pusey (see vol. ii. 612). Farrar::
   "Lives of the Fathers," i. 491-582.

   Page 920, line 22. Add:

   In one of his plaintive songs from his religious retreat, after
   lamenting the factions of the church, the loss of youth, health,
   strength, parents, and friends, and his gloomy and homeless condition,
   Gregory thus gives touching expression to his faith in Christ as the
   last and only comforter:

   "Thy will be done, O Lord! That day shall spring,
   When at thy word, this clay shall reappear.

   No death I dread, but that which sin will bring;
   No fire or flood without thy wrath I fear;

   For Thou, O Christ, my King, art fatherland to me.
   My wealth, and might, and rest; my all I find in Thee." 1

   1 Pros heauton, in Daniel's Thesaurus Hymnol., iii., 11:

   Christe anax, su de moi patre, sthenos, olbos, hapanta,

   Soi d ar anapsuxaimi bion kai kede ameipsas.

   Page 924. After line 2, add to Lit. on Cyril of Jerusalem:

   J. H. Newman: Preface to the Oxford transl. of Cyril in the "Library of
   the Fathers"(1839). E. Venables, in Smith and Wace, i. 760-763. C.
   Burk, in Herzog,2 iii. 416-418.

   Page 933, line 4 from below. Add to Lit. on Chrysostom:

   Villemain: L'éloquence chrétienne dans le quatrième siècle. Paris 1849;
   new ed. 1857. P. Albert: St. Jean Chrysostôme considéré comme orateur
   populaire. Paris, 1858. Abbé Rochet: Histoire de S. Jean Chrysostôme.
   Paris, 1866. 2 vols. Th. Förster: Chrysostomus in seinem Verhältniss
   zur antiochenischen Schule. Gotha, 1869. W. Maggilvray: John of the
   Golden Mouth. Lond., 1871. Am. Thierry: S. J. Chrysostôme et l'
   imperatrice Eudoxie. 2d ed. Paris, 1874. Böhringer: Johann Chrysostomus
   und Olympias, in his K. G. in Biogr., vol. ix., new ed., 1876. W. R. W.
   Stephens: St. Chrysostom: his Life and Times. London, 1872; 3d ed.,
   1883. F. W. Farrar, in "Lives of the Fathers," Lond., 1889, ii.
   460-540.

   Engl. translation of works of St. Chrys., edited by Schaff, N. York,
   1889, 6 vols. (with biographical sketch and literature by Schaff).

   Page 942, line 14. Add to Lit. on Cyril of Alex.:

   A new ed. of Cyril's works, including his Com. on the Minor Prophets,
   the Gospel of John, the Five Books against Nestorius, the Scholia on
   the Incarnation, etc., was prepared with great pains by Philip Pusey
   (son of Dr. Pusey). Oxf., 1868-81. In 5 vols Engl. trans. in the Oxford
   "Library of the Fathers." 1874 sqq. See an interesting sketch of Ph.
   Pusey (d. 1880) and his ed. in the "Church Quarterly Review" (London),
   Jan., 1883, pp. 257-291.

   Page 942, line 24. Add:

   Hefele: Conciliengesch., vol. ii., revised ed. (1875), where Cyril
   figures very prominently, pp. 135, 157, 167 sqq., 247 sqq., 266 sqq.,
   etc. C. Burk, in Herzog,2 iii. 418 sq. W. Bright: St. Cyrillus of Al.,
   in Smith and Wace, i. 763-773.

   Page 950. Add to Lit. on Ephraem:

   Evangelii Concordantis Expositio facta a S. Ephraemo Doctore Syro.
   Venet., 1876. (A Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, found in the
   Mechitarist Convent at Venice in an Armenian translation, translated
   into Latin, 1841, by Aucher, and published with an introduction by
   Prof. Mösinger of Salzburg.) Comp. also the art. Ephraem, in Herzog,2
   iv. 255-261 (by Radiger, revised by Spiegel). In Smith and Wace, ii.
   137-145 (by E. Venables).

   Page 955. Add to Lit. on Lactantius:

   English translation by W. Fletcher, in Clark's "Ante-Nicene Library,"
   vols. xxi. and xxii. Edinb., 1871. For an estimate of his literary
   merits, see Ebert: Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. Leipz., 1874 sqq.,
   vol. i. 70-86. Ebert, in Herzog,2 viii. 364-366. Ffoulkes, in Smith and
   Wace, iii. 613-617.

   Page 959, line 9. Add to Lit. on Hilary of Poitiers:

   Reinkens: Hilarius von Poitiers. Schaffhausen, 1864. Semisch, in
   Herzog,2 vi. 416-427. Cazenove, in Smith and Wace, ii. 54-66, and his
   St. Hilary of Poitiers. Lond., 1883. (Soc. for Promot. Christian
   Knowledge.) Farrar: in "Lives of the Fathers" (1889), i. 426-467.

   Page 961. Add to Lit on Ambrose,

   Bannard: Histoire de S. Ambroise. Paris, 1871. Ebert: Gesch. der
   christl. lat. Lit., i. 135-176 (1874). Robinson Thornton: St. Ambrose:
   his Life, Times, and Teaching. Lond., 1879, 215 pages (Soc. for
   Promoting Christ. Knowledge). Plitt, in Herzog,2 i. 331-335. J. Ll.
   Davies, in Smith and Wace, i. 91-99. Cunitz, in Lichtenberger, i.
   229-232. Farrar: "Lives of the Fathers "(1889), ii. 84-149. On the
   hymns of Ambrose, Comp. especially Ebert, l. c.

   Page 967. Add to Lit. on Jerome:

   Amédée Thierry: St. Jérôme, la société chrétienne à Rome et
   l'emigration romaine en terre sainte. Par., 1867. 2 vols. (He says at
   the close: "There is no continuation of Jerome's work; a few more
   letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night falls on the West.")
   Lübeck: Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores et ex quibus hauserit.
   Leipzig, 1872. Ebert: Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. Leipz., 1874 sqq.,
   i. 176-203 (especially on the Latinity of Jerome, in which he places
   him first among the fathers). Edward L. Cutts: St. Jerome. London, 1877
   (Soc. for Promot. Chr. Knowledge), 230 pages. Zöckler, in Herzog,2 vi.
   103-108. Cunitz, in Lichtenberger, vii. 243-250. Freemantle, in Smith
   and Wace, iii. 29-50. ("Jerome lived and reigned for a thousand years.
   His writings contain the whole spirit of the church of the middle ages,
   its monasticism, its contrast of sacred things with profane, its
   credulity and superstition, its subjection to hierarchical authority,
   its dread of heresy, its passion for pilgrimages. To the society which
   was thus in a great measure formed by him, his Bible was the greatest
   boon which could have been given. But he founded no school and had no
   inspiring power; there was no courage or width of view in his spiritual
   legacy which could break through the fatal circle of bondage to
   received authority which was closing round manki

   On Jerome as a Bible translator, comp. F. Kaulen (R.C.): Geschichte der
   Vulgata. Mainz, 1869. Hermann Rönsch: Itala und Vulgata. Das
   Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata. 2d
   ed., revised. Marburg, 1875. L. Ziegler: Die latein Bibelübersetzungen
   vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus. München, 1879. (He
   maintains the existence of several Latin versions or revisions before
   Jerome.) Westcott's art. "Vulgate," in Smith's Dict. of the Bible. O.
   F. Fritzsche: Latein. Bibelübersetzungen, in the new ed. of Herzog,
   vol. viii. (1881), pp. 433-472. Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament,
   vol. ii., lntrod., pp. 78-84.

   Page 989, line 13. Add to Lit. on Augustine:

   English translations of select works of Aug. by Dr. Pusey and others in
   the Oxford Library of the Fathers" : the Confessions, vol. i., 1839,
   4th ed., 1853; Sermons, vol. xvi., 1844, and vol. xx., 1845; Short
   Treatises, vol. xxii., 1847; Expositions on the Psalms, vols. xxiv.,
   xxv., xxx., xxxii., xxxvii., xxxix., 1847, 1849, 1850, 1853, 1854;
   Homilies on John, vols. xxvi. and xxix., 1848 and 1849. Another
   translation by Marcus Dods and others, Edinb. (T. and T. Clark),
   1871-76, 15 vols., containing the City of God, the Anti-Donatist, the
   Anti-Pelagian, the Anti-Manichaean writings, Letters, On the Trinity,
   the Sermon on the Mount, and the Harmony of the Gospels, On Christian
   Doctrine, the Euchiridion, on Catechising, on Faith and the Creed,
   Lectures on John, and Confessions. The same revised with new
   translations and Prolegomena, edited by Philip Schaff, N. York,
   1886-88, 8 vols. German translation of select writings of Aug. in the
   Kempten Bibliothek Der Kirchenväter, 1871-79, 8 vols.

   On the same page, line 30. Substitute and add at the close of Lit.:

   C. Bindemann: Der heil. Augustin. Berlin, 1844-55-69. 3 vols. Gangauf:
   Des heil. Aug. Lehre von Gott dem dreieinigen. Augsburg, 1866.
   Reinkens: Geschichtsphilosophie des heil. Augustin. Schaffhausen, 1866.
   Emil Feuerlein: Ueber die Stellung Augustin's in der Kirchen- und
   Kulturgeschichte. 1869. (In v. Sybel's "Hist. Zeitschrift" for 1869,
   vol. xi., 270-313. Ernst: Die Werke und Tugenden der Ungläubigen nach
   Augustin. Freib., 1872. Böhringer: Aurelius Augustinus, revised ed.
   Leipz., 1877-78. 2 parts. Aug. Dorner: Augustinus, sein Theol. System
   und seine religionsphilosophische Auschauung. Berlin, 1873. Ebert:
   Gesch. der christl. lat. Lit. Leipzig, 1874 sqq., vol. i. 203-243.
   Edward L. Cutts: St. Augustine. London (Soc. for Prom. Christian
   Knowledge), 1880. H. Reuter: Augustinische Studien, in Brieger's
   "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch." for 1880-83 (four articles on Aug.'s
   doctrine of the church, predestination, the kingdom of God, etc.). Ch.
   H. Collett: St. Aug., a Sketch o f his Life and Writings as affecting
   the Controversy with Rome. Lond., 1883. W. Cunningham: S. Austin and
   his Place in Christian Thought (Hulsean Lectures for 1885), Cambridge,
   1886 (283 pp.). James F. Spalding: The Teaching and Influence of Saint
   Augustine. N. York, 1886 (106 pp.). H. Reuter: Augustinische Studien,
   Gotha, 1887 (516 pp.; able, learned, and instructive). Ad. Harnack:
   Augustin's Confessionen. Giessen, 1888 (31 pp., brief, but suggestive).
   F. W. Farrar, in his "Lives of the Fathers," Lond. 1889, vol. ii.
   298-460.

   On the Philosophy of Aug., compare besides the works quoted on same
   page:

   Erdmann: Grundriss der Gesch. der Philos., i. 231 sqq. Ueberweg:
   History of Philos. Engl. transl. by Morris, vol. i. 333-346. Ferraz: De
   la psychologie de S. Aug. 2d ed. Paris, 1869. Schütz: Augustinum non
   esse ontologum. Monast., 1867. G. Loesche: De Augustino Plotinizanto in
   doctrina de Deo disserenda. Jenae, 1880. (68 pages.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   ADDENDA TO THE FIFTH EDITION. 1893

   Page 2. Add to Literature:

   The historical works of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret,
   Rufinus, Jerome, and Gennadius, are translated with Introductions and
   Notes by various American and English scholars in the second series of
   the "Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
   Church," edited by Schaff and Wace, New York and Oxford, vols. i.-iv.,
   1890-92.

   Page 40.

   Julian The Emperor, containing Gregory Nazianzen's Two Invectives, and
   Libanius' Monody, with Julian's extant Theosophical Works. Translated
   by C. W. King, M. A. London, 1888. With notes and archaeological
   illustrations (pp. 288).
     __________________________________________________________________

   APPENDIX TO THE REVISED EDITION, 1884.

   With new Additions, 1889.
     __________________________________________________________________

   ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

   [In the additions to the literature I have followed the method of
   italicizing book-titles and words in foreign languages, as in the
   revised edition of vols. i. and ii. The same method will be carried out
   in all subsequent volumes.]

   Page 11. Add To Literature On Constantine The Great:

   Th. Zahn: Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche. Hannover, 1876.
   Demetriades: Die christl. Regierung und Orthodoxie Kaiser Constantin's
   des Gr. Muenchen, 1878. Th. Brieger: Constantin der Gr. als
   Religionspolitiker. Gotha, 1880. E. L. Cutts: Constantine the Great.
   Lond. And N. Y., 1881. W. Gass: Konstantin der Gr. und seine Soehne, in
   Herzog,2 vii. (1881), 199-207. John Wordsworth: Const. the Gr. and his
   Sons, in Smith and Wace, i. 623-654. Edm. Stapfer: in Lichtenberger,
   iii. 388-393.--Comp. also vol. ii. p. 64-74, especially on the Edicts
   Of Toleration (only two, not three, as formerly assumed). Victor
   Schultze Geschichte des Untergangs des Griechisch-roemischen
   Heidenthums. Jena, 1887, Vol. i. 28-68.

   Page 40. Add To Lit, on the heathen sources:

   Juliani imperatoris Librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt.
   Collegit, recensuit, prolegomenis instruxit Car. Joa. Neumann. Insunt
   Cyrilli Alexandrini fragmenta syriaca ab Eberh. Nestle edita. Lips.,
   1880. Kaiser Julian's Buecher gegen die Christen. Nach ihrer
   Wiederherstellung uebersetzt von Karl Joh. Neumann. Leipzig, 1880. 53
   pages. This is Fasc. iii. of Scriptorum Graecorum qui Christianam
   impugnaverunt religionem quae supersunt, ed. by Neumann.

   Page 40, bottom of the page. Add to works on Julian the Apostate:

   Alb. De Broglie (R.C.), in the third and fourth vols. of his L'église
   et l'empire romain au quatrième siécle. Par., 4th ed., 1868. (Very
   full.) J. F. A. Muecke: Flavius Claudius Julianus. Nach den Quellen.
   Gotha, 1867 and 1869. 2 vols. (Full, painstaking, prolix, too much
   dependent on Ammianus, and partial to Julian.) Kellerbaum: Skizze der
   Vorgeschichte Julians, 1877. F. Rode: Gesch. der Reaction des Kaiser
   Julianus gegen die christl. Kirche. Jens, 1877. (Careful, partly
   against Teuffel and Muecke.) H. Adrien Naville: Julien l'apostate et sa
   philosophie du polythéisme. . Paris and Neuchatel, 1877. Comp. his art.
   in Lichtenbergers "Encyclop.," vii. 519-525. Torquati: Studii
   storico-critici sulla vita ... di Giuliano l'Apostata. Rom., 1878. G.
   H. Rendall: The Emperor Julian: Paganism and Christianity. Lond., 1879.
   J. G. E. Hoffmann: Jul. der Abtruennige, Syrische Erzaehlungen. Leiden,
   1880. (Old romances reflecting the feelings of the Eastern Christians.)
   Comp. also art. on Jul. in the "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., vol. xiii.
   768-770 (by Kirkup); in Herzog2, vii. 285-296 (by Harnack); in Smith
   and Wace, iii. 484-524 (by Prebendary John Wordsworth, very full and
   fair).

   Page 60. Add to literature:

   Tillemont: Hist. des empereurs, tom. v. A. De Broglie, l.c. Victor
   Schultze: Gesch. d. Untergangs des gr. roem. Heidenthums, i. 209-400.

   Page 81, last line, after Muenter, 1826, add:

   ; by C. Bursian, Lips., 1856; C. Halm, Vienna, 1867).

   Page 93. Add as footnote 3:

   3 Jerome, who was a shrewd observer of men and things, and witnessed
   the first effects of the union of church and state, says: "Ecclesia
   postquam ad Christianos principes venit, potentia quidem et divitiis
   major, sed virtutibus minor facta.'

   Page 148. Add at the bottom of the page:

   H. Weingarten: Der Ursprung des Moenchthums im nachconstantinischen
   Zeitalter. Gotha, 1877. See also his art. in Herzog2, x. 758 sqq. Ad.
   Harnack: Das Moenchthum, seine Ideale und seine Geschichte. Giessen,
   1882.--Comp. vol. ii. ch. ix. p. 387 sqq.

   Page 226. Add to footnote:

   Ad. Franz, Marcus Aur. Cassiodorus Senator. Breslau, 1872.

   Page 242, i 50, add:

   See Lit. on clerical celibacy in vol. i. p. 403 sq., especially
   Theiner, Lea, and von Schulte.

   Page 314. Add to Lit. on Leo the Great:

   Friedrich (old Cath.): Zur aeltesten Geschichte des Primates in der
   Kirche. Bonn, 1879. Jos. Langen (old Cath.): Geschichte der roem.
   Kirche bis zum Pontificate Leo's I. Bonn, 1881. Karl Mueller in
   Herzog2, viii. (1881), 551-563. C. Gore, in Smith and Wace, iii.
   (1882), 652-673. By the same: Leo the Great (Lond. Soc. for Promoting
   Christ Knowledge, 175 pages). On the literary merits of Leo, see Ebert:
   Geschichte der christl. Lat. Lit., vol. i. 447-449.

   Page 329.

   Add to § 64 the following:
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Indexes
     __________________________________________________________________

Subject Index

   Architecture, [1]iii.xi.ii-p0.1, [2]iii.xi.v-p0.1

   Art, [3]iii.xi-p1.2

   Asceticism, [4]iii.vii.i-p0.1

   Baptism, [5]iii.x.xix-p0.1

   Bishops, [6]iii.viii.vi-p0.1

   Christmas, [7]iii.x.iv-p0.1

   Church Discipline, [8]iii.ix-p1.2

   Church Hierarchy, [9]iii.viii-p1.2

   Church Schisms, [10]iii.ix-p1.3

   Church and State, [11]iii.vi-p1.2

   Clergy, [12]iii.viii.i-p0.1, [13]iii.viii.iii-p0.1,
   [14]iii.viii.iv-p0.1

   Confirmation, [15]iii.x.xx-p0.1

   Cross, [16]iii.xi.viii-p0.1

   Donatism, [17]iii.ix.ii-p0.1

   Easter, [18]iii.x.v-p0.1

   Ecclesiastical Law, [19]iii.viii.xx-p0.1

   Eucharist, [20]iii.x.xxii-p0.1, [21]iii.x.xxiii-p0.1,
   [22]iii.x.xxiv-p0.1

   Liturgy, [23]iii.x.xxv-p0.1

   Oriental, [24]iii.x.xxvi-p0.1

   Western, [25]iii.x.xxvii-p0.1

   Mariolatry, [26]iii.x.ix-p0.1

   Mariology, [27]iii.x.viii-p0.1

   Miracles, [28]iii.x.xv-p0.1

   Monasticism, [29]iii.vii-p1.2, [30]iii.vii.xvii-p0.1

   Music, [31]iii.xi.xii-p0.2

   Ordination, [32]iii.x.xxi-p0.1

   Papacy, [33]iii.viii.xiii-p0.1

   Patriarchs, [34]iii.viii.viii-p0.1

   Pentecost, [35]iii.x.vii-p0.1

   Pilgrimages, [36]iii.x.xvi-p0.2

   Poetry, [37]iii.xi.xii-p0.1

   Oriental, [38]iii.xi.xiii-p0.1

   Processions , [39]iii.x.xvi-p0.1

   Public Worship, [40]iii.x-p1.2

   Relics, [41]iii.x.xiv-p0.1

   Resurrection, [42]iii.x.xiv-p0.2

   Sacraments, [43]iii.x.xviii-p0.1

   Slavery, [44]iii.vi.viii-p0.2

   Social Reforms, [45]iii.vi.viii-p0.1

   The Church Year, [46]iii.x.iii-p0.1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

   Genesis

   [47]1:1   [48]1:3   [49]2:17   [50]2:24   [51]3   [52]3:15   [53]3:19
   [54]5:3   [55]6:4   [56]8:21   [57]9:25   [58]14:14   [59]31:10
   [60]31:24   [61]50:1-2   [62]50:25   [63]50:26

   Exodus

   [64]12:15   [65]13:19   [66]20:4   [67]27:30   [68]28:1-53
   [69]28:6-11   [70]28:15-30   [71]28:30   [72]28:39   [73]34:19-20
   [74]34:19-20   [75]34:28

   Leviticus

   [76]20:7   [77]27:30-33

   Numbers

   [78]6:1-21   [79]12:6   [80]18:15   [81]18:15   [82]18:20-24
   [83]19:2   [84]19:11   [85]22:22-33

   Deuteronomy

   [86]12   [87]13:6-10   [88]14:22   [89]104

   Joshua

   [90]6:3   [91]24:32

   Judges

   [92]16:7   [93]100:14

   1 Samuel

   [94]16:6   [95]21

   2 Samuel

   [96]2:18

   1 Kings

   [97]3:5   [98]7:23-26   [99]8:1   [100]19:8

   2 Kings

   [101]3:13   [102]13:21

   2 Chronicles

   [103]4:2-5   [104]30:17   [105]31:4   [106]35:21   [107]100:5-7

   Job

   [108]19:26   [109]33:15-16

   Psalms

   [110]3:1   [111]10   [112]19:5   [113]25   [114]25:6   [115]31:2
   [116]31:5   [117]33:15   [118]34   [119]34:15   [120]40   [121]43:1
   [122]45   [123]45   [124]45:3   [125]51:5   [126]51:7   [127]72:10-11
   [128]91:15   [129]96:5   [130]98   [131]113   [132]119:37
   [133]119:164   [134]119:164   [135]127   [136]139:7

   Proverbs

   [137]8:22   [138]8:22-25   [139]9:9   [140]10:19   [141]10:19
   [142]22:8

   Ecclesiastes

   [143]1:6   [144]1:9   [145]1:31   [146]2:10   [147]3:3   [148]4:22
   [149]4:25   [150]5   [151]6:25   [152]7   [153]8:1   [154]10
   [155]10:2-4   [156]10:6   [157]50   [158]50   [159]50   [160]50
   [161]50   [162]50

   Isaiah

   [163]1:3   [164]6:3   [165]6:3   [166]7:9   [167]20:2   [168]49:23
   [169]52:14   [170]53:2-3   [171]53:2-3   [172]58:13   [173]63:16
   [174]64:4   [175]66:7   [176]66:10

   Jeremiah

   [177]1:5   [178]1:17   [179]10:11

   Ezekiel

   [180]4:4   [181]18:2-4   [182]44:1-3

   Daniel

   [183]2:4   [184]2:36   [185]10:13   [186]10:20   [187]10:21   [188]12:1

   Hosea

   [189]1:2

   Zechariah

   [190]12:1

   Malachi

   [191]1:10

   Matthew

   [192]1:18   [193]1:20   [194]1:24   [195]1:25   [196]1:25   [197]1:25
   [198]1:25   [199]1:25   [200]1:25   [201]2:1-11   [202]5:13
   [203]5:17-19   [204]5:28   [205]5:40   [206]5:89   [207]6:14
   [208]6:34   [209]7:18   [210]8:29   [211]8:47   [212]9:20   [213]9:20
   [214]10:15   [215]10:20   [216]11:18-19   [217]11:27   [218]12:31
   [219]12:32   [220]12:36   [221]12:39-40   [222]12:46-47
   [223]12:46-50   [224]13   [225]13   [226]13:38   [227]15:2   [228]16
   [229]16:18   [230]16:18   [231]16:18   [232]16:22   [233]18:10
   [234]19:5   [235]19:21   [236]19:21   [237]19:23-24   [238]20:9
   [239]21:8   [240]21:8   [241]22:30   [242]24:19   [243]25:6
   [244]25:34   [245]25:40   [246]25:46   [247]26:39   [248]28:19
   [249]28:20   [250]28:20   [251]63

   Mark

   [252]1:24   [253]3:31-32   [254]6:4   [255]6:17   [256]7:3
   [257]7:34   [258]9:50   [259]12:52   [260]13:32   [261]15:7

   Luke

   [262]1:15   [263]1:23   [264]1:26-39   [265]1:28   [266]1:28
   [267]1:28   [268]1:28   [269]1:28   [270]1:28   [271]1:35   [272]1:36
   [273]1:38   [274]1:38   [275]1:42   [276]1:42   [277]1:43   [278]1:43
   [279]1:43   [280]1:43   [281]1:43   [282]1:48   [283]1:58   [284]2:1
   [285]2:7   [286]2:7   [287]2:7   [288]2:8   [289]2:14   [290]2:22
   [291]2:22-38   [292]2:35   [293]2:35   [294]2:35   [295]2:52
   [296]2:52   [297]2:53   [298]3:23   [299]8:28   [300]10:38-42
   [301]11:38   [302]12:35   [303]14:23   [304]14:23   [305]14:23
   [306]14:33   [307]15:7   [308]15:10   [309]16:27

   John

   [310]1:1   [311]1:1   [312]1:14   [313]1:18   [314]2:3   [315]2:4
   [316]2:4   [317]2:4   [318]2:21   [319]3:5   [320]3:5   [321]3:6
   [322]3:13   [323]3:27   [324]3:30   [325]5:2-16   [326]5:17
   [327]5:17   [328]5:17   [329]5:18   [330]5:26-27   [331]6:37
   [332]6:39   [333]6:53   [334]6:57   [335]7:3   [336]7:5   [337]7:10
   [338]8:26   [339]10:22   [340]12:27-28   [341]13   [342]14:10
   [343]14:10   [344]14:16   [345]14:26   [346]14:26   [347]14:28
   [348]14:28   [349]15:15   [350]15:26   [351]15:26   [352]15:26
   [353]17:5   [354]17:5   [355]19:21   [356]19:25   [357]19:25
   [358]19:25-27   [359]20:22   [360]20:22   [361]25

   Acts

   [362]1   [363]1:13   [364]1:14   [365]1:14   [366]2:36   [367]3
   [368]5:3-4   [369]5:14-15   [370]7:8   [371]7:16   [372]9:13
   [373]9:32   [374]9:41   [375]10:17   [376]10:24   [377]12:6
   [378]12:15   [379]13:2   [380]14:23   [381]15   [382]15:6
   [383]15:20   [384]15:22   [385]15:28   [386]17:34   [387]19:11-12
   [388]19:13   [389]20:36   [390]23:26

   Romans

   [391]1:4   [392]1:7   [393]2:14   [394]2:20   [395]3:24   [396]4:4-5
   [397]4:6   [398]5:12   [399]5:12   [400]5:12   [401]5:12   [402]5:12
   [403]5:12   [404]5:12   [405]5:12   [406]5:12   [407]5:12-21
   [408]6:4-6   [409]8:8-9   [410]8:11   [411]8:19   [412]8:29
   [413]8:29   [414]8:31   [415]9:6   [416]9:36   [417]12:1   [418]12:12
   [419]13:6   [420]13:14   [421]14:20   [422]14:23   [423]14:23
   [424]15:16   [425]15:27   [426]16:1   [427]1608   [428]1661
   [429]1693   [430]1698   [431]1719   [432]1719   [433]1730   [434]1731
   [435]1749   [436]1749   [437]1754   [438]1764   [439]1822   [440]1828
   [441]1833   [442]1844   [443]1845   [444]1847   [445]1847   [446]1848
   [447]1852   [448]1853   [449]1854

   1 Corinthians

   [450]1:2   [451]2:8   [452]2:9   [453]2:9   [454]2:9   [455]2:11-12
   [456]2:14   [457]3:15   [458]4:7   [459]4:7   [460]6:1-6   [461]6:11
   [462]7   [463]7:1   [464]7:1   [465]7:3   [466]7:8   [467]7:9
   [468]7:10   [469]7:21   [470]7:25   [471]7:25   [472]7:26   [473]7:29
   [474]7:36   [475]7:38   [476]7:39   [477]9:5   [478]10:4   [479]10:21
   [480]11:27-28   [481]11:28-29   [482]11:31   [483]12   [484]13:1-3
   [485]14:16   [486]15:22   [487]15:22   [488]15:22   [489]15:25
   [490]15:28   [491]15:45   [492]21

   2 Corinthians

   [493]1   [494]4:4   [495]5:16   [496]6:14   [497]9:4   [498]9:6
   [499]9:12   [500]12   [501]13:13

   Galatians

   [502]1:1   [503]2   [504]2   [505]2:11   [506]2:11   [507]2:11
   [508]2:11-12   [509]2:11-14   [510]2:11-14   [511]2:14   [512]3:1
   [513]3:28   [514]4:4   [515]5:17   [516]5:19

   Ephesians

   [517]1:1   [518]1:4   [519]1:15   [520]1:18   [521]2:3   [522]2:3
   [523]2:8   [524]2:8   [525]2:8   [526]2:8-9   [527]2:9   [528]2:10
   [529]3:3   [530]3:8   [531]3:13   [532]3:16   [533]4:11   [534]4:11
   [535]5:5   [536]5:14   [537]5:14   [538]5:17   [539]5:19   [540]5:32
   [541]6:12   [542]100:20

   Philippians

   [543]1:1   [544]1:1   [545]1:1   [546]1:6   [547]1:6   [548]1:29
   [549]2:6   [550]2:6   [551]2:6   [552]2:7   [553]2:7-9   [554]2:13

   Colossians

   [555]1:15   [556]1:15   [557]1:15   [558]1:15   [559]2:16-23
   [560]2:18   [561]2:18   [562]4:4   [563]4:6   [564]4:10

   1 Thessalonians

   [565]5:17   [566]5:23

   2 Thessalonians

   [567]2:7

   1 Timothy

   [568]1:15   [569]2:4   [570]2:15   [571]3:2   [572]3:2   [573]3:3
   [574]3:12   [575]3:12   [576]3:16   [577]3:16   [578]4:1-3   [579]4:3
   [580]4:3-5   [581]5:9   [582]5:14

   2 Timothy

   [583]2:11   [584]2:11-13

   Titus

   [585]1:3   [586]1:5   [587]1:5   [588]1:7   [589]1:7   [590]2
   [591]2:13   [592]2:14   [593]3   [594]3:5-7   [595]3:8   [596]12

   Hebrews

   [597]1:3   [598]1:4   [599]1:4   [600]1:14   [601]1:14   [602]2:16
   [603]2:18   [604]3:2   [605]3:14   [606]5:6   [607]5:8-9   [608]6:4
   [609]7:1   [610]7:3   [611]7:4   [612]7:23-24   [613]8:2   [614]8:6
   [615]9:13   [616]10:14   [617]11:35   [618]13:4   [619]13:10

   James

   [620]1:17

   1 Peter

   [621]2:2   [622]2:9   [623]2:9   [624]5:1   [625]5:8

   2 Peter

   [626]2:16

   1 John

   [627]1:8   [628]3:9   [629]5:7   [630]5:18

   Revelation

   [631]2:1-7   [632]2:17   [633]3:11   [634]4:8   [635]6:9   [636]6:9
   [637]8:3-4   [638]11:15   [639]12:7-9   [640]13:7   [641]13:10
   [642]14:4   [643]17:3   [644]19:10   [645]19:10   [646]20:6
   [647]22:8-9   [648]22:8-9

   1 Maccabees

   [649]4:59

   2 Maccabees

   [650]6

   Sirach

   [651]1:4
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Names

     * Aerius: [652]1 [653]2 [654]3 [655]4
     * Ambrose: [656]1 [657]2 [658]3 [659]4 [660]5 [661]6 [662]7 [663]8
       [664]9 [665]10 [666]11 [667]12 [668]13 [669]14 [670]15 [671]16
       [672]17 [673]18 [674]19 [675]20 [676]21 [677]22 [678]23 [679]24
       [680]25 [681]26 [682]27 [683]28 [684]29 [685]30 [686]31 [687]32
       [688]33 [689]34 [690]35 [691]36 [692]37 [693]38 [694]39 [695]40
       [696]41 [697]42 [698]43 [699]44 [700]45 [701]46 [702]47 [703]48
       [704]49 [705]50 [706]51 [707]52 [708]53 [709]54 [710]55 [711]56
       [712]57 [713]58 [714]59 [715]60 [716]61 [717]62 [718]63 [719]64
       [720]65 [721]66 [722]67 [723]68 [724]69 [725]70 [726]71 [727]72
       [728]73 [729]74 [730]75 [731]76 [732]77 [733]78 [734]79 [735]80
       [736]81 [737]82 [738]83 [739]84 [740]85 [741]86 [742]87 [743]88
       [744]89 [745]90 [746]91 [747]92 [748]93 [749]94 [750]95 [751]96
       [752]97 [753]98 [754]99 [755]100 [756]101 [757]102 [758]103
       [759]104 [760]105 [761]106 [762]107 [763]108 [764]109 [765]110
       [766]111 [767]112 [768]113 [769]114 [770]115 [771]116 [772]117
       [773]118 [774]119 [775]120 [776]121 [777]122 [778]123 [779]124
       [780]125 [781]126 [782]127 [783]128 [784]129 [785]130 [786]131
       [787]132 [788]133 [789]134 [790]135 [791]136 [792]137 [793]138
       [794]139 [795]140 [796]141 [797]142 [798]143 [799]144 [800]145
       [801]146 [802]147 [803]148 [804]149 [805]150
     * Ambrose of Milan: [806]1
     * Anastasius II.: [807]1
     * Anthony: [808]1 [809]2 [810]3 [811]4 [812]5 [813]6 [814]7 [815]8
       [816]9 [817]10 [818]11 [819]12 [820]13 [821]14 [822]15 [823]16
       [824]17 [825]18 [826]19 [827]20 [828]21 [829]22 [830]23 [831]24
       [832]25 [833]26 [834]27 [835]28 [836]29 [837]30 [838]31 [839]32
       [840]33 [841]34 [842]35 [843]36 [844]37 [845]38 [846]39 [847]40
       [848]41 [849]42 [850]43 [851]44 [852]45 [853]46 [854]47 [855]48
       [856]49 [857]50 [858]51 [859]52 [860]53 [861]54 [862]55 [863]56
       [864]57 [865]58 [866]59 [867]60
     * Athanasius: [868]1 [869]2
     * Audius: [870]1
     * Augustine: [871]1 [872]2 [873]3 [874]4 [875]5 [876]6 [877]7 [878]8
       [879]9 [880]10 [881]11 [882]12 [883]13 [884]14 [885]15 [886]16
       [887]17 [888]18 [889]19 [890]20 [891]21 [892]22 [893]23 [894]24
       [895]25 [896]26 [897]27 [898]28 [899]29 [900]30 [901]31 [902]32
       [903]33 [904]34 [905]35 [906]36 [907]37 [908]38 [909]39 [910]40
       [911]41 [912]42 [913]43 [914]44 [915]45 [916]46 [917]47 [918]48
       [919]49 [920]50 [921]51 [922]52 [923]53 [924]54 [925]55 [926]56
       [927]57 [928]58 [929]59 [930]60 [931]61 [932]62 [933]63 [934]64
       [935]65 [936]66 [937]67 [938]68 [939]69 [940]70 [941]71 [942]72
       [943]73 [944]74 [945]75 [946]76 [947]77 [948]78 [949]79 [950]80
       [951]81 [952]82 [953]83 [954]84 [955]85 [956]86 [957]87 [958]88
       [959]89 [960]90 [961]91 [962]92 [963]93 [964]94 [965]95 [966]96
       [967]97 [968]98 [969]99 [970]100 [971]101 [972]102 [973]103
       [974]104 [975]105 [976]106 [977]107 [978]108 [979]109 [980]110
       [981]111 [982]112 [983]113 [984]114 [985]115 [986]116 [987]117
       [988]118 [989]119 [990]120 [991]121 [992]122 [993]123 [994]124
       [995]125 [996]126 [997]127 [998]128 [999]129 [1000]130 [1001]131
       [1002]132 [1003]133 [1004]134 [1005]135 [1006]136 [1007]137
       [1008]138 [1009]139 [1010]140 [1011]141 [1012]142 [1013]143
       [1014]144 [1015]145 [1016]146 [1017]147 [1018]148 [1019]149
       [1020]150 [1021]151 [1022]152 [1023]153 [1024]154 [1025]155
       [1026]156 [1027]157 [1028]158 [1029]159 [1030]160 [1031]161
       [1032]162 [1033]163 [1034]164 [1035]165 [1036]166 [1037]167
       [1038]168 [1039]169 [1040]170 [1041]171 [1042]172 [1043]173
       [1044]174 [1045]175 [1046]176 [1047]177 [1048]178 [1049]179
       [1050]180 [1051]181 [1052]182 [1053]183 [1054]184 [1055]185
       [1056]186 [1057]187 [1058]188 [1059]189 [1060]190 [1061]191
       [1062]192 [1063]193 [1064]194 [1065]195 [1066]196 [1067]197
       [1068]198 [1069]199 [1070]200 [1071]201 [1072]202 [1073]203
       [1074]204 [1075]205 [1076]206 [1077]207 [1078]208 [1079]209
       [1080]210 [1081]211 [1082]212 [1083]213 [1084]214 [1085]215
       [1086]216 [1087]217 [1088]218 [1089]219 [1090]220 [1091]221
       [1092]222 [1093]223 [1094]224 [1095]225 [1096]226 [1097]227
       [1098]228 [1099]229 [1100]230 [1101]231 [1102]232 [1103]233
       [1104]234 [1105]235 [1106]236 [1107]237 [1108]238 [1109]239
       [1110]240 [1111]241 [1112]242 [1113]243 [1114]244 [1115]245
       [1116]246 [1117]247 [1118]248 [1119]249 [1120]250 [1121]251
       [1122]252 [1123]253 [1124]254 [1125]255 [1126]256 [1127]257
       [1128]258 [1129]259 [1130]260 [1131]261 [1132]262 [1133]263
       [1134]264 [1135]265 [1136]266 [1137]267 [1138]268 [1139]269
       [1140]270 [1141]271 [1142]272 [1143]273 [1144]274 [1145]275
       [1146]276 [1147]277 [1148]278 [1149]279 [1150]280 [1151]281
       [1152]282 [1153]283 [1154]284 [1155]285 [1156]286 [1157]287
       [1158]288 [1159]289 [1160]290 [1161]291 [1162]292 [1163]293
       [1164]294 [1165]295 [1166]296 [1167]297 [1168]298 [1169]299
       [1170]300 [1171]301 [1172]302 [1173]303 [1174]304 [1175]305
       [1176]306 [1177]307 [1178]308 [1179]309 [1180]310 [1181]311
       [1182]312 [1183]313 [1184]314 [1185]315 [1186]316 [1187]317
       [1188]318 [1189]319 [1190]320 [1191]321 [1192]322 [1193]323
       [1194]324 [1195]325 [1196]326 [1197]327 [1198]328 [1199]329
       [1200]330 [1201]331 [1202]332 [1203]333 [1204]334 [1205]335
       [1206]336 [1207]337 [1208]338 [1209]339 [1210]340 [1211]341
       [1212]342 [1213]343 [1214]344 [1215]345 [1216]346 [1217]347
       [1218]348 [1219]349 [1220]350 [1221]351 [1222]352 [1223]353
       [1224]354 [1225]355 [1226]356 [1227]357 [1228]358 [1229]359
       [1230]360 [1231]361 [1232]362 [1233]363 [1234]364 [1235]365
       [1236]366 [1237]367 [1238]368 [1239]369 [1240]370 [1241]371
       [1242]372 [1243]373 [1244]374 [1245]375 [1246]376 [1247]377
       [1248]378 [1249]379 [1250]380 [1251]381 [1252]382 [1253]383
       [1254]384 [1255]385 [1256]386 [1257]387 [1258]388 [1259]389
       [1260]390 [1261]391 [1262]392 [1263]393 [1264]394 [1265]395
       [1266]396 [1267]397 [1268]398 [1269]399 [1270]400 [1271]401
       [1272]402 [1273]403 [1274]404 [1275]405 [1276]406 [1277]407
       [1278]408 [1279]409 [1280]410 [1281]411 [1282]412 [1283]413
       [1284]414 [1285]415 [1286]416 [1287]417 [1288]418 [1289]419
       [1290]420 [1291]421 [1292]422 [1293]423 [1294]424 [1295]425
       [1296]426 [1297]427 [1298]428 [1299]429 [1300]430 [1301]431
       [1302]432 [1303]433 [1304]434 [1305]435 [1306]436 [1307]437
       [1308]438 [1309]439 [1310]440 [1311]441 [1312]442 [1313]443
       [1314]444 [1315]445 [1316]446 [1317]447 [1318]448 [1319]449
       [1320]450 [1321]451 [1322]452 [1323]453 [1324]454 [1325]455
       [1326]456 [1327]457 [1328]458 [1329]459 [1330]460 [1331]461
       [1332]462 [1333]463 [1334]464 [1335]465 [1336]466 [1337]467
       [1338]468 [1339]469 [1340]470 [1341]471 [1342]472 [1343]473
       [1344]474 [1345]475 [1346]476 [1347]477 [1348]478 [1349]479
       [1350]480 [1351]481 [1352]482 [1353]483 [1354]484 [1355]485
       [1356]486 [1357]487 [1358]488 [1359]489 [1360]490 [1361]491
       [1362]492 [1363]493 [1364]494 [1365]495 [1366]496 [1367]497
       [1368]498 [1369]499 [1370]500 [1371]501 [1372]502 [1373]503
       [1374]504 [1375]505 [1376]506 [1377]507 [1378]508 [1379]509
       [1380]510 [1381]511 [1382]512 [1383]513 [1384]514 [1385]515
       [1386]516 [1387]517 [1388]518 [1389]519 [1390]520 [1391]521
       [1392]522 [1393]523 [1394]524 [1395]525 [1396]526 [1397]527
       [1398]528 [1399]529 [1400]530 [1401]531 [1402]532 [1403]533
       [1404]534 [1405]535 [1406]536 [1407]537 [1408]538 [1409]539
       [1410]540 [1411]541 [1412]542 [1413]543 [1414]544 [1415]545
       [1416]546 [1417]547 [1418]548 [1419]549 [1420]550 [1421]551
       [1422]552 [1423]553 [1424]554 [1425]555 [1426]556 [1427]557
       [1428]558 [1429]559 [1430]560 [1431]561 [1432]562 [1433]563
       [1434]564 [1435]565 [1436]566 [1437]567 [1438]568 [1439]569
       [1440]570 [1441]571 [1442]572 [1443]573 [1444]574 [1445]575
       [1446]576 [1447]577 [1448]578 [1449]579 [1450]580 [1451]581
       [1452]582 [1453]583 [1454]584 [1455]585 [1456]586 [1457]587
       [1458]588 [1459]589 [1460]590 [1461]591 [1462]592 [1463]593
       [1464]594 [1465]595 [1466]596 [1467]597 [1468]598 [1469]599
       [1470]600 [1471]601 [1472]602 [1473]603 [1474]604 [1475]605
       [1476]606 [1477]607 [1478]608 [1479]609 [1480]610 [1481]611
       [1482]612 [1483]613 [1484]614 [1485]615 [1486]616 [1487]617
       [1488]618 [1489]619 [1490]620 [1491]621 [1492]622 [1493]623
       [1494]624 [1495]625 [1496]626 [1497]627 [1498]628 [1499]629
       [1500]630 [1501]631 [1502]632 [1503]633 [1504]634 [1505]635
       [1506]636 [1507]637 [1508]638 [1509]639 [1510]640 [1511]641
       [1512]642 [1513]643 [1514]644 [1515]645 [1516]646 [1517]647
       [1518]648 [1519]649 [1520]650 [1521]651 [1522]652 [1523]653
       [1524]654 [1525]655 [1526]656 [1527]657 [1528]658 [1529]659
       [1530]660 [1531]661 [1532]662 [1533]663 [1534]664 [1535]665
       [1536]666 [1537]667 [1538]668
     * Benedict: [1539]1 [1540]2 [1541]3 [1542]4 [1543]5 [1544]6 [1545]7
       [1546]8 [1547]9 [1548]10 [1549]11 [1550]12 [1551]13 [1552]14
       [1553]15 [1554]16 [1555]17 [1556]18 [1557]19 [1558]20 [1559]21
       [1560]22 [1561]23 [1562]24 [1563]25 [1564]26 [1565]27 [1566]28
       [1567]29 [1568]30 [1569]31 [1570]32 [1571]33 [1572]34 [1573]35
       [1574]36 [1575]37 [1576]38 [1577]39 [1578]40 [1579]41 [1580]42
       [1581]43 [1582]44 [1583]45 [1584]46 [1585]47 [1586]48 [1587]49
       [1588]50 [1589]51 [1590]52 [1591]53 [1592]54 [1593]55 [1594]56
       [1595]57 [1596]58 [1597]59 [1598]60 [1599]61 [1600]62 [1601]63
       [1602]64 [1603]65 [1604]66 [1605]67 [1606]68 [1607]69 [1608]70
       [1609]71 [1610]72 [1611]73 [1612]74 [1613]75 [1614]76 [1615]77
       [1616]78 [1617]79 [1618]80 [1619]81 [1620]82 [1621]83 [1622]84
       [1623]85 [1624]86 [1625]87 [1626]88 [1627]89 [1628]90 [1629]91
       [1630]92 [1631]93 [1632]94 [1633]95 [1634]96
     * Benedict of Nursia: [1635]1
     * CONSTANTINE: [1636]1
     * Chrysostom: [1637]1 [1638]2 [1639]3 [1640]4 [1641]5 [1642]6 [1643]7
       [1644]8 [1645]9 [1646]10 [1647]11 [1648]12 [1649]13 [1650]14
       [1651]15 [1652]16 [1653]17 [1654]18 [1655]19 [1656]20 [1657]21
       [1658]22 [1659]23 [1660]24 [1661]25 [1662]26 [1663]27 [1664]28
       [1665]29 [1666]30 [1667]31 [1668]32 [1669]33 [1670]34 [1671]35
       [1672]36 [1673]37 [1674]38 [1675]39 [1676]40 [1677]41 [1678]42
       [1679]43 [1680]44 [1681]45 [1682]46 [1683]47 [1684]48 [1685]49
       [1686]50 [1687]51 [1688]52 [1689]53 [1690]54 [1691]55 [1692]56
       [1693]57 [1694]58 [1695]59 [1696]60 [1697]61 [1698]62 [1699]63
       [1700]64 [1701]65 [1702]66 [1703]67 [1704]68 [1705]69 [1706]70
       [1707]71 [1708]72 [1709]73 [1710]74 [1711]75 [1712]76 [1713]77
       [1714]78 [1715]79 [1716]80 [1717]81 [1718]82 [1719]83 [1720]84
       [1721]85 [1722]86 [1723]87 [1724]88 [1725]89 [1726]90 [1727]91
       [1728]92 [1729]93 [1730]94 [1731]95 [1732]96 [1733]97 [1734]98
       [1735]99 [1736]100 [1737]101 [1738]102 [1739]103 [1740]104
       [1741]105 [1742]106 [1743]107 [1744]108 [1745]109 [1746]110
       [1747]111 [1748]112 [1749]113 [1750]114 [1751]115 [1752]116
       [1753]117 [1754]118 [1755]119 [1756]120 [1757]121 [1758]122
       [1759]123 [1760]124 [1761]125 [1762]126 [1763]127 [1764]128
       [1765]129 [1766]130 [1767]131 [1768]132 [1769]133 [1770]134
       [1771]135 [1772]136 [1773]137 [1774]138 [1775]139 [1776]140
       [1777]141 [1778]142 [1779]143 [1780]144 [1781]145 [1782]146
       [1783]147 [1784]148 [1785]149 [1786]150 [1787]151 [1788]152
       [1789]153 [1790]154 [1791]155 [1792]156 [1793]157 [1794]158
       [1795]159 [1796]160 [1797]161 [1798]162 [1799]163 [1800]164
       [1801]165 [1802]166 [1803]167 [1804]168 [1805]169 [1806]170
       [1807]171 [1808]172 [1809]173 [1810]174 [1811]175 [1812]176
       [1813]177 [1814]178 [1815]179 [1816]180 [1817]181 [1818]182
       [1819]183 [1820]184 [1821]185 [1822]186 [1823]187 [1824]188
       [1825]189 [1826]190 [1827]191 [1828]192 [1829]193 [1830]194
       [1831]195 [1832]196 [1833]197 [1834]198 [1835]199 [1836]200
       [1837]201 [1838]202 [1839]203 [1840]204 [1841]205 [1842]206
       [1843]207 [1844]208 [1845]209 [1846]210 [1847]211 [1848]212
       [1849]213 [1850]214 [1851]215 [1852]216 [1853]217 [1854]218
       [1855]219 [1856]220 [1857]221 [1858]222 [1859]223 [1860]224
       [1861]225 [1862]226 [1863]227 [1864]228 [1865]229 [1866]230
       [1867]231 [1868]232 [1869]233 [1870]234
     * Constantine: [1871]1 [1872]2 [1873]3 [1874]4 [1875]5 [1876]6
       [1877]7 [1878]8 [1879]9 [1880]10 [1881]11 [1882]12 [1883]13
       [1884]14 [1885]15 [1886]16 [1887]17 [1888]18 [1889]19 [1890]20
       [1891]21 [1892]22 [1893]23 [1894]24 [1895]25 [1896]26 [1897]27
       [1898]28 [1899]29 [1900]30 [1901]31 [1902]32 [1903]33 [1904]34
       [1905]35 [1906]36 [1907]37 [1908]38 [1909]39 [1910]40 [1911]41
       [1912]42 [1913]43 [1914]44 [1915]45 [1916]46 [1917]47 [1918]48
       [1919]49 [1920]50 [1921]51 [1922]52 [1923]53 [1924]54 [1925]55
       [1926]56 [1927]57 [1928]58 [1929]59 [1930]60 [1931]61 [1932]62
       [1933]63 [1934]64 [1935]65 [1936]66 [1937]67 [1938]68 [1939]69
       [1940]70 [1941]71 [1942]72 [1943]73 [1944]74 [1945]75 [1946]76
       [1947]77 [1948]78 [1949]79 [1950]80 [1951]81 [1952]82 [1953]83
       [1954]84 [1955]85 [1956]86 [1957]87 [1958]88 [1959]89 [1960]90
       [1961]91 [1962]92 [1963]93 [1964]94 [1965]95 [1966]96 [1967]97
       [1968]98 [1969]99 [1970]100 [1971]101 [1972]102 [1973]103 [1974]104
       [1975]105 [1976]106 [1977]107 [1978]108 [1979]109 [1980]110
       [1981]111 [1982]112 [1983]113 [1984]114 [1985]115 [1986]116
       [1987]117 [1988]118 [1989]119 [1990]120 [1991]121 [1992]122
       [1993]123 [1994]124 [1995]125 [1996]126 [1997]127 [1998]128
       [1999]129 [2000]130 [2001]131 [2002]132 [2003]133 [2004]134
       [2005]135 [2006]136 [2007]137 [2008]138 [2009]139 [2010]140
       [2011]141 [2012]142 [2013]143 [2014]144 [2015]145 [2016]146
       [2017]147 [2018]148 [2019]149 [2020]150 [2021]151 [2022]152
       [2023]153 [2024]154 [2025]155 [2026]156 [2027]157 [2028]158
       [2029]159 [2030]160 [2031]161 [2032]162 [2033]163 [2034]164
       [2035]165 [2036]166 [2037]167 [2038]168 [2039]169 [2040]170
       [2041]171 [2042]172 [2043]173 [2044]174 [2045]175 [2046]176
       [2047]177 [2048]178 [2049]179 [2050]180 [2051]181 [2052]182
       [2053]183 [2054]184 [2055]185 [2056]186 [2057]187 [2058]188
       [2059]189 [2060]190 [2061]191 [2062]192 [2063]193 [2064]194
       [2065]195 [2066]196 [2067]197 [2068]198 [2069]199 [2070]200
       [2071]201 [2072]202 [2073]203 [2074]204 [2075]205 [2076]206
       [2077]207 [2078]208 [2079]209 [2080]210 [2081]211 [2082]212
       [2083]213 [2084]214 [2085]215 [2086]216 [2087]217 [2088]218
       [2089]219 [2090]220 [2091]221 [2092]222 [2093]223 [2094]224
       [2095]225 [2096]226 [2097]227 [2098]228 [2099]229 [2100]230
       [2101]231 [2102]232 [2103]233 [2104]234 [2105]235 [2106]236
       [2107]237 [2108]238 [2109]239 [2110]240 [2111]241 [2112]242
       [2113]243 [2114]244 [2115]245 [2116]246 [2117]247 [2118]248
       [2119]249 [2120]250 [2121]251 [2122]252 [2123]253 [2124]254
       [2125]255 [2126]256 [2127]257 [2128]258 [2129]259 [2130]260
       [2131]261 [2132]262 [2133]263 [2134]264 [2135]265 [2136]266
       [2137]267 [2138]268 [2139]269 [2140]270 [2141]271
     * Constantine The Great: [2142]1
     * Cyril of Jerusalem: [2143]1
     * Damasus: [2144]1
     * Eustathius: [2145]1
     * Facundus: [2146]1
     * Felix II.: [2147]1
     * Gaudentius: [2148]1
     * Gelasius I.: [2149]1
     * Gregory I: [2150]1
     * Gregory I.: [2151]1
     * Gregory Nazianzen: [2152]1 [2153]2 [2154]3
     * Helvidius: [2155]1 [2156]2 [2157]3 [2158]4 [2159]5 [2160]6 [2161]7
       [2162]8 [2163]9 [2164]10 [2165]11 [2166]12 [2167]13 [2168]14
       [2169]15 [2170]16
     * Hilarion: [2171]1
     * Hilary: [2172]1 [2173]2 [2174]3 [2175]4 [2176]5 [2177]6 [2178]7
       [2179]8 [2180]9 [2181]10 [2182]11 [2183]12 [2184]13 [2185]14
       [2186]15 [2187]16 [2188]17 [2189]18 [2190]19 [2191]20 [2192]21
       [2193]22 [2194]23 [2195]24 [2196]25 [2197]26 [2198]27 [2199]28
       [2200]29 [2201]30 [2202]31 [2203]32 [2204]33 [2205]34 [2206]35
       [2207]36 [2208]37 [2209]38 [2210]39 [2211]40 [2212]41 [2213]42
       [2214]43 [2215]44 [2216]45 [2217]46 [2218]47 [2219]48 [2220]49
       [2221]50 [2222]51 [2223]52 [2224]53 [2225]54 [2226]55 [2227]56
       [2228]57 [2229]58 [2230]59 [2231]60 [2232]61 [2233]62 [2234]63
       [2235]64 [2236]65 [2237]66 [2238]67 [2239]68 [2240]69 [2241]70
       [2242]71 [2243]72 [2244]73
     * Hormisdas: [2245]1
     * Jerome: [2246]1 [2247]2 [2248]3 [2249]4 [2250]5 [2251]6 [2252]7
       [2253]8 [2254]9 [2255]10 [2256]11 [2257]12 [2258]13 [2259]14
       [2260]15 [2261]16 [2262]17 [2263]18 [2264]19 [2265]20 [2266]21
       [2267]22 [2268]23 [2269]24 [2270]25 [2271]26 [2272]27 [2273]28
       [2274]29 [2275]30 [2276]31 [2277]32 [2278]33 [2279]34 [2280]35
       [2281]36 [2282]37 [2283]38 [2284]39 [2285]40 [2286]41 [2287]42
       [2288]43 [2289]44 [2290]45 [2291]46 [2292]47 [2293]48 [2294]49
       [2295]50 [2296]51 [2297]52 [2298]53 [2299]54 [2300]55 [2301]56
       [2302]57 [2303]58 [2304]59 [2305]60 [2306]61 [2307]62 [2308]63
       [2309]64 [2310]65 [2311]66 [2312]67 [2313]68 [2314]69 [2315]70
       [2316]71 [2317]72 [2318]73 [2319]74 [2320]75 [2321]76 [2322]77
       [2323]78 [2324]79 [2325]80 [2326]81 [2327]82 [2328]83 [2329]84
       [2330]85 [2331]86 [2332]87 [2333]88 [2334]89 [2335]90 [2336]91
       [2337]92 [2338]93 [2339]94 [2340]95 [2341]96 [2342]97 [2343]98
       [2344]99 [2345]100 [2346]101 [2347]102 [2348]103 [2349]104
       [2350]105 [2351]106 [2352]107 [2353]108 [2354]109 [2355]110
       [2356]111 [2357]112 [2358]113 [2359]114 [2360]115 [2361]116
       [2362]117 [2363]118 [2364]119 [2365]120 [2366]121 [2367]122
       [2368]123 [2369]124 [2370]125 [2371]126 [2372]127 [2373]128
       [2374]129 [2375]130 [2376]131 [2377]132 [2378]133 [2379]134
       [2380]135 [2381]136 [2382]137 [2383]138 [2384]139 [2385]140
       [2386]141 [2387]142 [2388]143 [2389]144 [2390]145 [2391]146
       [2392]147 [2393]148 [2394]149 [2395]150 [2396]151 [2397]152
       [2398]153 [2399]154 [2400]155 [2401]156 [2402]157 [2403]158
       [2404]159 [2405]160 [2406]161 [2407]162 [2408]163 [2409]164
       [2410]165 [2411]166 [2412]167 [2413]168 [2414]169 [2415]170
       [2416]171 [2417]172 [2418]173 [2419]174 [2420]175 [2421]176
       [2422]177 [2423]178 [2424]179 [2425]180 [2426]181 [2427]182
       [2428]183 [2429]184 [2430]185 [2431]186 [2432]187 [2433]188
       [2434]189 [2435]190 [2436]191 [2437]192 [2438]193 [2439]194
       [2440]195 [2441]196 [2442]197 [2443]198 [2444]199 [2445]200
       [2446]201 [2447]202 [2448]203 [2449]204 [2450]205 [2451]206
       [2452]207 [2453]208 [2454]209 [2455]210 [2456]211 [2457]212
       [2458]213 [2459]214 [2460]215 [2461]216 [2462]217 [2463]218
       [2464]219 [2465]220 [2466]221 [2467]222 [2468]223 [2469]224
       [2470]225 [2471]226 [2472]227 [2473]228 [2474]229 [2475]230
       [2476]231 [2477]232 [2478]233 [2479]234 [2480]235 [2481]236
       [2482]237 [2483]238 [2484]239 [2485]240 [2486]241 [2487]242
       [2488]243 [2489]244 [2490]245 [2491]246 [2492]247 [2493]248
       [2494]249 [2495]250 [2496]251 [2497]252 [2498]253 [2499]254
       [2500]255 [2501]256 [2502]257 [2503]258 [2504]259 [2505]260
       [2506]261 [2507]262 [2508]263 [2509]264 [2510]265 [2511]266
       [2512]267 [2513]268 [2514]269 [2515]270 [2516]271 [2517]272
       [2518]273 [2519]274 [2520]275 [2521]276 [2522]277 [2523]278
       [2524]279 [2525]280 [2526]281 [2527]282 [2528]283 [2529]284
       [2530]285 [2531]286 [2532]287 [2533]288 [2534]289 [2535]290
       [2536]291 [2537]292 [2538]293 [2539]294 [2540]295 [2541]296
       [2542]297 [2543]298 [2544]299 [2545]300 [2546]301 [2547]302
       [2548]303 [2549]304 [2550]305 [2551]306 [2552]307 [2553]308
       [2554]309 [2555]310 [2556]311 [2557]312 [2558]313 [2559]314
       [2560]315 [2561]316 [2562]317 [2563]318 [2564]319 [2565]320
       [2566]321 [2567]322 [2568]323 [2569]324 [2570]325 [2571]326
       [2572]327 [2573]328 [2574]329
     * John Cassian: [2575]1
     * Jovinian: [2576]1 [2577]2 [2578]3 [2579]4 [2580]5 [2581]6 [2582]7
       [2583]8 [2584]9 [2585]10 [2586]11 [2587]12 [2588]13 [2589]14
       [2590]15 [2591]16 [2592]17 [2593]18 [2594]19 [2595]20 [2596]21
       [2597]22 [2598]23 [2599]24 [2600]25 [2601]26 [2602]27 [2603]28
     * Julian: [2604]1 [2605]2 [2606]3 [2607]4 [2608]5 [2609]6 [2610]7
       [2611]8 [2612]9 [2613]10 [2614]11 [2615]12 [2616]13 [2617]14
       [2618]15 [2619]16 [2620]17 [2621]18 [2622]19 [2623]20 [2624]21
       [2625]22 [2626]23 [2627]24 [2628]25 [2629]26 [2630]27 [2631]28
       [2632]29 [2633]30 [2634]31 [2635]32 [2636]33 [2637]34 [2638]35
       [2639]36 [2640]37 [2641]38 [2642]39 [2643]40 [2644]41 [2645]42
       [2646]43 [2647]44 [2648]45 [2649]46 [2650]47 [2651]48 [2652]49
       [2653]50 [2654]51 [2655]52 [2656]53 [2657]54 [2658]55 [2659]56
       [2660]57 [2661]58 [2662]59 [2663]60 [2664]61 [2665]62 [2666]63
       [2667]64 [2668]65 [2669]66 [2670]67 [2671]68 [2672]69 [2673]70
       [2674]71 [2675]72 [2676]73 [2677]74 [2678]75 [2679]76 [2680]77
       [2681]78 [2682]79 [2683]80 [2684]81 [2685]82 [2686]83 [2687]84
       [2688]85 [2689]86 [2690]87 [2691]88 [2692]89 [2693]90 [2694]91
       [2695]92 [2696]93 [2697]94 [2698]95 [2699]96 [2700]97 [2701]98
       [2702]99 [2703]100 [2704]101 [2705]102 [2706]103 [2707]104
       [2708]105 [2709]106 [2710]107 [2711]108 [2712]109 [2713]110
       [2714]111 [2715]112 [2716]113 [2717]114 [2718]115 [2719]116
       [2720]117 [2721]118 [2722]119 [2723]120 [2724]121 [2725]122
       [2726]123 [2727]124 [2728]125 [2729]126 [2730]127 [2731]128
       [2732]129 [2733]130 [2734]131 [2735]132 [2736]133 [2737]134
       [2738]135 [2739]136 [2740]137 [2741]138 [2742]139 [2743]140
       [2744]141 [2745]142 [2746]143 [2747]144 [2748]145 [2749]146
       [2750]147 [2751]148 [2752]149 [2753]150 [2754]151 [2755]152
       [2756]153 [2757]154 [2758]155 [2759]156 [2760]157 [2761]158
       [2762]159 [2763]160 [2764]161 [2765]162 [2766]163 [2767]164
       [2768]165 [2769]166 [2770]167 [2771]168 [2772]169 [2773]170
       [2774]171 [2775]172 [2776]173 [2777]174 [2778]175 [2779]176
       [2780]177 [2781]178 [2782]179 [2783]180 [2784]181 [2785]182
       [2786]183 [2787]184 [2788]185 [2789]186 [2790]187 [2791]188
       [2792]189 [2793]190 [2794]191 [2795]192 [2796]193 [2797]194
       [2798]195 [2799]196 [2800]197 [2801]198 [2802]199 [2803]200
     * Lardner: [2804]1
     * Leo I.: [2805]1
     * Leo the Great: [2806]1
     * Macarius the Elder: [2807]1
     * Martin of Tours: [2808]1
     * Optatus: [2809]1
     * Orosius: [2810]1 [2811]2 [2812]3 [2813]4 [2814]5 [2815]6 [2816]7
       [2817]8 [2818]9 [2819]10 [2820]11 [2821]12 [2822]13 [2823]14
       [2824]15 [2825]16
     * Pachomius: [2826]1
     * Paul of Thebes: [2827]1
     * Pelagius I.: [2828]1
     * Pope Leo I: [2829]1
     * Salvianus: [2830]1 [2831]2 [2832]3 [2833]4 [2834]5 [2835]6 [2836]7
       [2837]8
     * Simplicius: [2838]1
     * St. Ambrose: [2839]1
     * St. Anthony of Egypt: [2840]1
     * St. Basil: [2841]1
     * St. Benedict: [2842]1
     * St. Francis of Assisi: [2843]1
     * St. Paula: [2844]1
     * St. Symeon the Stylite: [2845]1
     * Tertullian: [2846]1 [2847]2 [2848]3 [2849]4 [2850]5 [2851]6 [2852]7
       [2853]8 [2854]9 [2855]10 [2856]11 [2857]12 [2858]13 [2859]14
       [2860]15 [2861]16 [2862]17 [2863]18 [2864]19 [2865]20 [2866]21
       [2867]22 [2868]23 [2869]24 [2870]25 [2871]26 [2872]27 [2873]28
       [2874]29 [2875]30 [2876]31 [2877]32 [2878]33 [2879]34 [2880]35
       [2881]36 [2882]37 [2883]38 [2884]39 [2885]40 [2886]41 [2887]42
       [2888]43 [2889]44 [2890]45 [2891]46 [2892]47 [2893]48 [2894]49
       [2895]50 [2896]51 [2897]52 [2898]53 [2899]54 [2900]55 [2901]56
       [2902]57 [2903]58
     * Theodoret: [2904]1 [2905]2
     * Theodoric: [2906]1
     * Thomas Aquinas: [2907]1
     * Thomas a Kempis: [2908]1
     * Udo: [2909]1
     * Ursicinus: [2910]1
     * Ursinus: [2911]1
     * Vigilantius: [2912]1 [2913]2 [2914]3 [2915]4 [2916]5 [2917]6
       [2918]7 [2919]8 [2920]9 [2921]10 [2922]11 [2923]12 [2924]13
       [2925]14 [2926]15 [2927]16 [2928]17 [2929]18
     * Vigilius: [2930]1
     * benedict: [2931]1 [2932]2 [2933]3 [2934]4 [2935]5 [2936]6 [2937]7
       [2938]8 [2939]9 [2940]10 [2941]11 [2942]12 [2943]13 [2944]14
       [2945]15
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Greek Words and Phrases

     * Athropiskos euteles: [2946]1
     * `dia touto kai ta paidia baptizomen, kaitoi hamaptemata ouk
       echonta: [2947]1
     * 'te sebousin, oute atimazousi: [2948]1
     * Hoblasphemetheis parautoukurios Ies. Christos oHurisediates
       parouses hagiotates sunodou: [2949]1
     * episkopon kai prebuteron kai diakonon: [2950]1
     * agennetos: [2951]1
     * agathoi koinonoi phrontidon, deeseos sunergoi,
       presbeutaidunatotatoi: [2952]1
     * agaposi se: [2953]1
     * agaposin auton: [2954]1
     * adelphen gunaika periagein: [2955]1
     * adelphotheos: [2956]1
     * adelphoi: [2957]1
     * adiaretos, achoristos: [2958]1
     * atheletos: [2959]1
     * akephaloi: [2960]1
     * akataleptos: [2961]1
     * akataleptos. apeiros ,: [2962]1
     * aleitourgesia: [2963]1
     * alla prosechoresamen te basilidi Rome: [2964]1
     * ammas: [2965]1
     * anakrasis: [2966]1
     * analepsis tes hagias Theotokou: [2967]1
     * anaxios: [2968]1
     * anastasis nekron: [2969]1
     * anastasis tes sarkos: [2970]1
     * anabaino: [2971]1
     * anagnosmata, anagnoseis, perikopai: [2972]1 [2973]2
     * anagnostika, euangelistaria, eklogadia.: [2974]1
     * anapeisas: [2975]1
     * anachoreo: [2976]1
     * anachoretes: [2977]1
     * anepsioi: [2978]1
     * anthropotheos: [2979]1
     * anti ton doron eucharistikon: [2980]1
     * antidosis: [2981]1
     * antidosis , antimetastasis, koinonia idiomaton: [2982]1
     * antidora: [2983]1
     * antipascha: [2984]1
     * antenkuklion: [2985]1
     * antilegomena: [2986]1
     * antimethistasis: [2987]1
     * antimetastasis ton onomaton: [2988]1
     * anupostatos: [2989]1 [2990]2 [2991]3
     * anupostasia: [2992]1
     * apator, ametop, aneu genealogias: [2993]1
     * apo tou patros: [2994]1
     * apokrupha: [2995]1 [2996]2
     * aponoia: [2997]1
     * apaugasma: [2998]1
     * apechomenon, kai ton episkopon, ei kai boulointo, ou men ananke
       nomou touto poiounton. Polloi gar auton en to kairo tes episkopes
       kai paidas ek tes nomimes gametes pepoiekasin: [2999]1
     * apotheosis anthropou: [3000]1
     * apoluesthe en eirene: [3001]1
     * apologia huper Diodorou kai Theodorou: [3002]1
     * apostolike: [3003]1 [3004]2
     * apotage: [3005]1
     * archen hodon autou eis erga autou; pro tou aionos ethemeliosen me,
       k.t.l.: [3006]1
     * archiepiskopos: [3007]1
     * asteres tes oikoumenes, anthe ton ekklesion, humas ouch he ge
       katekrupsen, all ouranos hupedexato: [3008]1
     * atreptos .: [3009]1
     * achoristos: [3010]1
     * hagia: [3011]1
     * hamartemata: [3012]1
     * agion Pneuma, Triada homoousion kai achoriston: [3013]1
     * atheos: [3014]1
     * alogos: [3015]1
     * ametros: [3016]1
     * anthropos: [3017]1
     * archon basileus: [3018]1
     * hagio nklethesetai huios Theou: [3019]1
     * hagion sabbaton: [3020]1
     * Abouletos: [3021]1
     * Agenetos, ou poietheis: [3022]1
     * Agennetos: [3023]1
     * Agennesia: [3024]1
     * Agnoetai: [3025]1
     * Adelphoi makroi: [3026]1
     * Adiairetos: [3027]1
     * Akephaloi: [3028]1
     * Akolouthia tes times: [3029]1
     * Aktistetai: [3030]1
     * Amen: [3031]1
     * Amphithura, kinklides: [3032]1
     * Anegnon, egnon, kategnon: [3033]1
     * Anegnos, all auk egnos , ei gar egnos ouk an kategnos: [3034]1
     * Anomoioi: [3035]1
     * Anomoios kata ousian: [3036]1
     * Anomoios kata panta.: [3037]1
     * Analloiotos, atreptos ho huios.: [3038]1
     * Anamarteton: [3039]1
     * Anamartetous phulachthenai hemas.: [3040]1
     * Apollinarios: [3041]1
     * Apostolikos bios , ho ton angelon bios: [3042]1
     * Apotassomai soi, Satana, kai pase te pompe sou kai pase te latreia
       sou.: [3043]1
     * Archen echei: [3044]1
     * Archiepiskopon pases tes oikoumenes: [3045]1
     * Asunchutos, atreptos: [3046]1
     * Asebeis, dussebeis, atheoi: [3047]1
     * Asunchutos: [3048]1
     * Aphthartodoketai: [3049]1
     * Allon parakleton,: [3050]1
     * Ambon: [3051]1
     * Ano schomen ton noun kai tas kardias: [3052]1
     * Ano ton noun: [3053]1
     * Axion kai dikaion: [3054]1 [3055]2
     * Axios: [3056]1
     * Aplastos: [3057]1
     * Ara Theos ek patros kai huiou to pneuma.: [3058]1
     * Areios: [3059]1
     * Archontes: [3060]1
     * Hagios ho Theos , agios ischuros , hagios athanatos , ho
       staurotheis di hemas , eleeson hemas: [3061]1
     * eginoske: [3062]1
     * enkainiois: [3063]1
     * ethemeliose: [3064]1
     * ek: [3065]1 [3066]2
     * ek duo phusesin: [3067]1
     * ek duo phuseon: [3068]1 [3069]2 [3070]3
     * ek logion philosophia: [3071]1
     * ekboeseis demotikai: [3072]1
     * ekporeuetai: [3073]1
     * ekporeuetai ek tou huiou.: [3074]1
     * eleutheria: [3075]1
     * empexaitous odontas te sarkikaisumplakenai: [3076]1
     * emphusan: [3077]1
     * en: [3078]1 [3079]2 [3080]3
     * en anthropois eudokia: [3081]1
     * en aute te tou Theou logou hupostasei hupostasa: [3082]1
     * en duo phusesi: [3083]1
     * en duo phusesin: [3084]1 [3085]2
     * en duo phusesin adiairetois gnorizesthai ton Theon: [3086]1
     * en oHu: [3087]1
     * energeia drastike: [3088]1
     * energeiatouhagioupneumatos: [3089]1
     * enuparxis: [3090]1
     * enanthropesis: [3091]1
     * enanthropesis Theou: [3092]1
     * enoikesis: [3093]1
     * ensarkosis: [3094]1 [3095]2
     * enupostasia: [3096]1
     * ex amphoteron he ekklesia sunesteke.: [3097]1
     * ex ouk onton: [3098]1
     * exomologeseis: [3099]1
     * epi touto hoti: [3100]1
     * epi touto oHuste: [3101]1
     * epibasis theorias: [3102]1
     * epiklesis Pneumatos hagiou: [3103]1
     * episkopoi: [3104]1
     * episkopoi ton homoron agron: [3105]1
     * episkopoi ton eiso tes ekklesias: [3106]1
     * episkopos: [3107]1
     * eperoa: [3108]1
     * epilambanesthai: [3109]1
     * episkopon sunodo, psepho klerikon, aitesei laon: [3110]1
     * epiphania, Christ phania: [3111]1
     * epourania: [3112]1
     * epomis: [3113]1
     * eremia: [3114]1
     * eremites: [3115]1
     * eph hois: [3116]1
     * eph oHu: [3117]1 [3118]2
     * heautous esphaxan machaira: [3119]1
     * hebdomas megale: [3120]1
     * henoseos ennoian: [3121]1
     * heorte tes analepseos.: [3122]1
     * heorte ton baion: [3123]1
     * heorteanastasimos, kuriakemegale: [3124]1
     * heteroupostatos: [3125]1
     * ekpempsis: [3126]1
     * ektise: [3127]1
     * enosis: [3128]1
     * enosis eis mian phusin,: [3129]1
     * exarchos: [3130]1 [3131]2
     * epe: [3132]1 [3133]2
     * ergon: [3134]1 [3135]2
     * ergon tou leo: [3136]1
     * ergon.: [3137]1
     * henosis hupostatike: [3138]1
     * henosis .: [3139]1
     * henosis kath hupostasin,: [3140]1
     * henosis ton phuseon: [3141]1
     * henosis phusike: [3142]1 [3143]2 [3144]3 [3145]4
     * heos: [3146]1
     * Enkomioneis tous hagious pantas tous enholo to kosmo marturesantes:
       [3147]1
     * Enkuklion: [3148]1
     * Ego en to patri, kai ho pater en emoi.: [3149]1
     * Ek duo phuseon: [3150]1
     * Ekboeseis demotikai.: [3151]1
     * Ekklesian poieson sou ten oikian kai gar kai epeuthunos ei kai tes
       ton paidion kai tes oiketon soterias .: [3152]1
     * Ektupomata.: [3153]1
     * Ektupoun ton stauron en to metopo: [3154]1
     * Elthontes gar: [3155]1
     * Emoi ethos esti diokesthai kai me diokein: [3156]1
     * En duo phusesin: [3157]1
     * En tupo artou: [3158]1
     * En time esto Maria, ho de Pater ... proskuneistho, ten Marian
       medeis proskuneito.: [3159]1
     * Enanthropesis Theou, ensarkosis: [3160]1
     * Enoikesis,: [3161]1
     * Entautha esti ti pleon, hoion he homonoia kai he sumphonia kai tes
       agapes ho sundesmos kai hai ton hiereon euchai.: [3162]1
     * Exaposteilon eph hemas kai epi ta prokeimena dora tauta to Pneuma
       sou to panagion,: [3163]1
     * Epiklesis Pneumatos hagiou: [3164]1
     * Epilusis ton dodeka kephalaion: [3165]1
     * Episkopos e presbuteros e diakonos kosmikas phrontidas me
       analambaneto; ei de me, kathaireistho.: [3166]1
     * Episkopos e presbuteros e diakonos ten heautou gun'aika me
       ekballeto prophasei eulabeias? ean de ekbale, aphorixestho,
       epimenon de kathaireistho: [3167]1
     * Episkopos ton ektos: [3168]1
     * Epigonation,: [3169]1
     * Epieikos ebia zeto: [3170]1
     * Epitheseis aute tas cheiras, parestotos tou presbuteriou kai ton
       diakonon kai ton diakonisson: [3171]1
     * Epimanikia,: [3172]1
     * Epitaphios eis ton patera, parontos Basileiou: [3173]1
     * Epitrachelion: [3174]1
     * Eranistes: [3175]1
     * Esarkosis: [3176]1
     * Eph oHu: [3177]1
     * Ephraim: [3178]1
     * Heterotes tes ousias,: [3179]1
     * Heteroousios to patri.: [3180]1
     * Edoxetopneumatihagio kaihemin: [3181]1
     * Egeire ho katheudon,: [3182]1
     * Ekthesis pisteos: [3183]1
     * En thusiasterion, hos heis episkopos: [3184]1
     * EnthahoChristos keitaitethumenos: [3185]1
     * Esto de paradeigma anthropinon to pur kai to ex autou apaugasma:
       [3186]1
     * Echomen pros ton Kurion: [3187]1
     * Henosis kath hupostasin.: [3188]1
     * Henosis kat energeian: [3189]1
     * Henosis kat axian, kath huiothesian.: [3190]1
     * Henosis kata charin,: [3191]1
     * Henosis schetike,: [3192]1
     * he ekklesia tois theiois peithomene logois,: [3193]1
     * he ops: [3194]1
     * he graphe legei: [3195]1
     * he kuriake ton hagion panton,: [3196]1
     * hemera genethlios, genethlia tou Christou: [3197]1
     * hemegalepempte: [3198]1
     * hetoimasas: [3199]1
     * hepsato ton oston Helisaie, kai ezese kai este epi tous podas:
       [3200]1
     * en pote hote ouk en.: [3201]1
     * hen: [3202]1
     * He hagia kai oikoumenike sunodos: [3203]1
     * He ekklesia ou teuchos kai orophos , alla pistis kai bios .:
       [3204]1
     * He doule kuriou: [3205]1
     * He kata theon: [3206]1
     * He mathesis ouk allo ti e anamnesis .: [3207]1
     * He meter tou kuriou: [3208]1
     * He meter tou kuriou mou: [3209]1 [3210]2
     * He pege, he aitia, he rhiza tes theotetos: [3211]1
     * Hegoumenos, archemandrites , abbas: [3212]1
     * Hemiareioi: [3213]1
     * idiotes: [3214]1
     * idiotes ,: [3215]1
     * idiotes: [3216]1
     * idiotes, aphron: [3217]1
     * idioperioristos: [3218]1
     * idiosustatos: [3219]1
     * idioupostatos: [3220]1
     * isotheos: [3221]1
     * hiera: [3222]1
     * hiereis: [3223]1
     * hina ten korpian ekeinen idosi kai theasamenoi kataphilesosi ten
       gen.: [3224]1
     * ina me kateutelixetai to tou episkopou onoma kai he authentia:
       [3225]1
     * ina mete to philosophon akoinoneton he, mete to praktikon
       aphilosophon: [3226]1
     * idion.: [3227]1
     * idios: [3228]1 [3229]2
     * isos: [3230]1
     * IEsous: [3231]1
     * Idiomata.: [3232]1
     * Idikon.: [3233]1
     * Ioulio to episkopo Rhomes: [3234]1
     * Hiera stole, homophorion: [3235]1
     * Hieron..: [3236]1
     * Himan'tia kecharismena to Theo..: [3237]1
     * Idion patros men he agennesia, huiou de he gennesis , pneumatos de
       he ekpempsis .: [3238]1
     * Idomen ... ten tes arches paradosin kai didaskalian kai pistin tes
       katholikes ekklesias hen ho men kurios edoken, hoi de apostoloi
       ekeruxan, kai hoi pateres ephulaxan.: [3239]1
     * HiIna ... : [3240]1
     * Hina auta hagiase kai teleiose ... kai poiese ton men arton soma:
       [3241]1
     * Hina ... hagiase kai poiese ton men arton touton soma hagion tou
       Christou sou, k. t. l.: [3242]1
     * onomazetai: [3243]1
     * ho hagiotatos kai makariotatos archiepiskopos tes megales kai
       presbuteras Rhomes: [3244]1
     * ho Theos: [3245]1 [3246]2 [3247]3
     * ho theiotatos; kaieusebestatos hemondespotes: [3248]1
     * ho laos: [3249]1
     * ho megas: [3250]1
     * ho philos: [3251]1
     * ho chrestos Ioannes: [3252]1
     * homologoumena: [3253]1
     * homoousia Theo: [3254]1
     * homoousia panta astra: [3255]1
     * homoousion: [3256]1 [3257]2 [3258]3
     * homoousion to. Theo: [3259]1
     * homoousios: [3260]1 [3261]2 [3262]3 [3263]4
     * homos: [3264]1
     * hopoious an heurosin hemas: [3265]1
     * honar eide to tou staurou semeion selagizon: [3266]1
     * hoti: [3267]1
     * Ho anthropos: [3268]1
     * Ho hiereus; Ano schomen tas kardias.: [3269]1
     * Ho hiereus; Eucharistesomen to Kurio.: [3270]1
     * Ho Theos: [3271]1
     * Ho Logos enanthropesen, ina hemeis theopoiethomen: [3272]1
     * Ho blasphemetheis toinun par autou kurios ;hemon Iesous Christos
       oHurise dia tes parouses hagiotates sunodou, allotrion einai ton
       auton Nestorion tou episkopikou axiomatos kai pantos sullogou
       hieratikou: [3273]1
     * Ho de pater ho en emoi menon, autos poiei ta erga?: [3274]1
     * Ho despotes theos logos anthropon eilephe teleion: [3275]1
     * Ho dusi gamois sumplakeis meta to baptisma: [3276]1
     * Ho logos sarx egeneto: [3277]1
     * Ho logos sarx egeneto.: [3278]1
     * Ho monogenes huios , ho on: [3279]1
     * Ho parakletos;, hon ego pempso humin para patros ,: [3280]1
     * Ho parakletos, hon ego pempso humin para tou patros ,: [3281]1
     * Ho pater meizon mou estin.: [3282]1
     * Ho choros ; Axion kai dikaion esti proskunein Patera: [3283]1
     * Ho choros ; Echomen pro ton Kurion.: [3284]1
     * Homendetauteipon Romaia glotte: [3285]1
     * Homoiousiastoi: [3286]1
     * Homologesis: [3287]1
     * Homologo ek duo phuseon gegennesthai ton kurionhemon pro tes
       heneseos ; meta de ten henosin mian phusin homologo.: [3288]1
     * Homoousioi.: [3289]1
     * Homoousion: [3290]1
     * Homoousion to patri kata ten theoteta, kai homoousion hemin kata
       ten anthropoteta: [3291]1
     * Homoousios: [3292]1
     * Hotanides tonKuriontethumenonkaikeimenon,
       kaitonhiereaephestotatothumati, kaiepeuchomenon, k. t. l: [3293]1
     * Hoti kai kurion auton kai Christon epoiesen ho theos.: [3294]1
     * Hoti ... patera idion elege ton Theon, ison heauton poion to Theo:
       [3295]1
     * upostasis: [3296]1
     * utokephaloi: [3297]1
     * hulikos: [3298]1
     * hupante: [3299]1
     * hupantesis tou Kuriou: [3300]1
     * huper ton hagion sou topon, ohus edoxasas te theophaneia tou
       Christou sou, k.t.l.: [3301]1
     * hupelabon, hoi de ktisma, hoi de Theon.: [3302]1
     * hupostasis: [3303]1 [3304]2 [3305]3 [3306]4 [3307]5 [3308]6 [3309]7
     * hupapante: [3310]1
     * hupogonation': [3311]1
     * hupokato tou thusiasteriou: [3312]1
     * hupokeimenon,: [3313]1
     * hupostasei: [3314]1
     * hupostaseos: [3315]1
     * hupostasis: [3316]1
     * huphermeneuontos heterou, paredidoutonlogontois tes
       sunodouproedrois.: [3317]1
     * umnos heothinos ,: [3318]1
     * hudor rantismou: [3319]1
     * humnos hesperinos: [3320]1
     * humnos tou soteros Christou: [3321]1
     * huparchoi: [3322]1
     * Humeis: [3323]1
     * Huper tes endoxou Sion, tes metros pason ton ekklesion; kai huper
       tes kata pasan ten oikoumenen hagias sou katholikes kai apostolikes
       ekklesias .: [3324]1
     * Hupostasis: [3325]1
     * Hupostaseis: [3326]1
     * Hupotage taxeos kai axiomatos: [3327]1
     * HuOsteapopoleos eis
       polinmemetabaineinmeteepiskoponmetepresbuteronmetediakonon: [3328]1
     * Hu 'Ena kai auton huion ton kurion hemon I. Christon ton auton en
       theoteti kai teleion ton auton en anthropoteti, theon alethos kai
       athropon alethos ton auton, ek psuches logikes: [3329]1
     * HuUmnos esperinos: [3330]1
     * HuUmnos heothinos: [3331]1
     * HuOste duo men heinai patera kai huion, monada de theotetos
       adiaireton kai aschiston ... mia arche theotetos kai ou duo archai,
       hothen kurios kai monarchia estin.: [3332]1
     * onomasekaitenekpraktikes kaiphusikes kaitheologikes
       sunestosandidaskalian, dihes trephetaipsuchekaipros
       tonontontheorianparaskeuazetai. Kaitoutoestitoektourhetouisos
       deloumenon: [3333]1
     * orarion: [3334]1
     * hora: [3335]1
     * hos anthropos: [3336]1
     * hos theoi tupon echon en anthropois to panton archein anthropon,
       hiereon, basileon, archonton: [3337]1
     * Odeion: [3338]1
     * Omophorion: [3339]1
     * Horarion: [3340]1
     * Hos ho muthos poiei tous gigantas: [3341]1
     * Hos gar ouk estin he pege potamos , oude ho potamos pege, amphotera
       de hen kai tauton estin hudor to ek tes peges metecheuomenon,
       houtos he ek tou patros eis ton huion theotes arrheustos kai
       adiairetos tunchanei, k.t.l.: [3342]1
     * O choros hagios, o suntagma hieron, o sunapismos arhrhages, o
       koinoi phulakes tou genous ton anthropon: [3343]1
     * a timiotera lithon polutelon kai dokimotera huper chrusion osta
       autou: [3344]1
     * rhiza: [3345]1
     * ; Ta pneumatika tes ponerias en tois epouraniois: [3346]1
     * ; Ton en anatole panton gnome: [3347]1
     * Hairetikes kakomuthias epitome,: [3348]1
     * Ailouros: [3349]1
     * Haima Christou, poterion zoes: [3350]1
     * Haima timion tou Kuriou kai Theou kaiSoteros hemon: [3351]1
     * Aute de he phone kai to tou Sabelliou kakon epanorthoutai; anairei
       gar ten tautoteta tes hupostaseos kai eisagei taleian ton prosopon
       ten ennoian: [3352]1
     * Agie Ephraim, baetheimoi: [3353]1
     * Ankurotos: [3354]1
     * All huion heauton alethinon einai legon tou panton kratountos
       Theou, tacha pou kai diesphalleto.: [3355]1
     * Anakephalaiosis: [3356]1
     * Bios theoretikos ,: [3357]1
     * Bema: [3358]1
     * Babai, hoiai para christianois gunaikes eisi: [3359]1
     * Biblia anaginoskomena: [3360]1
     * Genetos: [3361]1
     * Gennetos: [3362]1
     * Gregorio hetairo: [3363]1
     * Doxa en hupsistois Theo: [3364]1
     * Doxa to Theo panton heneken,: [3365]1
     * Duo gar phuseon henosis;gegone: [3366]1
     * Duo men to einai: [3367]1
     * Duo phusikas theleseis etoi thelemata en auto kai duo phusikas
       energeias adiairetos, atreptos , ameristos, asunchutos: [3368]1
     * Deuterontou etous sunodos genestho ton episkopon: [3369]1
     * Di hes pasa pnoe pisteuousa sozetai: [3370]1
     * Dia touto aei pater kai ouk epigegone: [3371]1
     * Ei gar orthos elechgomen arti, kai to onti theois men achreston
       pseudos anthropois de chresimon, hos en pharmakou eidei, delon hoti
       to ge toiouton hiatrois doteon, idiotais de ouch hapteon. Delon,
       ephe. Tois archousi de tes poleos , eiper tisin allois, prosekei
       pseudesthai e polemion e politon heneka, ep opheleiates poleos;
       tois de allois pasin ouch hapteon tou toioutou: [3372]1
     * Eike thusia kathemerine, eike parestekamen to thusiasterio, oudeis
       ho metechon: [3373]1
     * Eis hen prosopon kai mian hupostasin: [3374]1
     * Eis Nikaian: [3375]1 [3376]2
     * Eis parthenona: [3377]1
     * Eisedexato.: [3378]1
     * Ei tioutheotokon ten Marian hupolambanei, choris esti tes theotetos
       .: [3379]1
     * Eige homoousioi hoi ton zoon psuchai hemeterais: [3380]1
     * Eulogemene en gunaixin: [3381]1
     * Eulogemene su en gunaixi, kai eulogemenos ho karpos tes koilias
       sou: [3382]1
     * Eulogemenesu en gunaixin: [3383]1
     * Eusebios: [3384]1
     * Euchitai-i, -i: [3385]1
     * Eucharistesomen to Kurio: [3386]1
     * Ek Marias tes parthenon, tes theotokou: [3387]1
     * Ekporeusis: [3388]1
     * Ekphrasis naou tes Sophias: [3389]1
     * Exaemeron,: [3390]1
     * Eskandalise pathos.: [3391]1
     * Zetesis, psephisma, psegos: [3392]1
     * Zone: [3393]1
     * Emera aspasmou,: [3394]1
     * Tholos.: [3395]1
     * Theanthropos.: [3396]1
     * Theianentolen,: [3397]1
     * Theon teleion kai anthropon teleion ek psuches logikes: [3398]1
     * Theos estaurothe di hemas: [3399]1
     * Theos hen ho logos: [3400]1
     * Theos: [3401]1 [3402]2 [3403]3 [3404]4
     * Theos, logos , sophia: [3405]1
     * Theopaschitai.: [3406]1
     * Theotokos: [3407]1
     * Thronos: [3408]1
     * Thusia proserche phriktekaiagia? esphagmenos prokeitaihoChristos.:
       [3409]1
     * Kurios ektisen me: [3410]1
     * Kai: [3411]1 [3412]2
     * Kai anasta ek ton nekron;: [3413]1
     * Kai epiphausei soi ho Christos.: [3414]1
     * Kai aineso to onoma sou eis ton aiona: [3415]1
     * Kai eis hena Kurion Iesoun Christon, ton huion tou Theou;
       gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene; tout estin ek tes ousias tou
       Patros, Theon ek Theou kai phos ek photos, Theon alethinon ek Theou
       alethinou; gennethenta, ou poiethenta, homoousion to Patri, k.t.l.:
       [3416]1
     * Kai eis to hagion pneuma pisteuomen, to lalesan en nomo, kai
       keruxan en tois prophetais kai kataban epi ton Iordanen, laloun en
       apostolois , oikoun en hagiois; houtos de pisteuomen en auto, hoti
       esti pneuma hagion, pneuma Theou, pneuma teleion, pneuma
       parakleton, aktiston, ek tou patros ekporeuomenon, kai ek tou huiou
       lambanomenon kai pisteuomenon: [3417]1
     * Kai eis ton aiona tou aionos.: [3418]1
     * Kai tas men theoprepeis kata ten theoteta tou Christou, tas de
       tapeinas kata ten anthropoteta autou paradidontas.: [3419]1
     * Kai te time proegeisthai auton: [3420]1
     * Kath hekasten hemeran eulogeso se,: [3421]1
     * Kathos gegraptai; ha ophthalmos ouk heide, kai ous ouk ekouse, kai
       epi kardian anthropou ouk anebe, ha hetoimasen ho Theos tois
       agaposin auton: [3422]1
     * Kathemerinon: [3423]1
     * Kanon.: [3424]1
     * Kata ton anthropinon charaktera.: [3425]1
     * Kata ton Nestoriou dusphemion pentabiblos antirrhetos: [3426]1
     * Kata tauten ten tes asunchutou: [3427]1
     * Kataxioson, kurie, kai ten hemeran tauten: [3428]1
     * Katecheseis mustagogikai: [3429]1
     * Katecheseis photizomenon: [3430]1
     * Kephaleia: [3431]1
     * Kecharitomene: [3432]1
     * Koinobion: [3433]1
     * Kolombethra: [3434]1
     * Kopiatai: [3435]1
     * Krene: [3436]1
     * Krotos: [3437]1
     * Kreitton genomenos ton angelon: [3438]1
     * Kruptai: [3439]1
     * Ktistolatrai: [3440]1
     * Laboron: [3441]1
     * Logos kata Hellenon: [3442]1
     * Logos katechetikos ho megas: [3443]1
     * Leitourgia,: [3444]1
     * Ma ton Iesoun: [3445]1
     * Mega: [3446]1
     * Me ek bouleseos: [3447]1
     * Mian phusin proskunein, kai tauten Theou sarkothentos kai
       enanthropesantos: [3448]1
     * Mongos: [3449]1
     * Makedonianoi: [3450]1
     * Metropolites: [3451]1
     * Monophusitai: [3452]1
     * Nomous palaitethnekotas: [3453]1
     * Naos: [3454]1
     * Naus: [3455]1
     * Nenikeka se Solomon: [3456]1
     * Nenikekas Galilaie: [3457]1
     * Nous, pneuma: [3458]1
     * O pater tes orthodoxias .: [3459]1
     * Oikonomoi: [3460]1
     * Hoi ex ouk onton: [3461]1
     * Hoi de, dia, ponerian, [eis ten tou klerou katalegontai taxin', kai
       hina me, parophthentes , megala ergasontai kaka: [3462]1
     * Hoi peri Eusebion: [3463]1
     * Hoiapostoloikaioipresbuteroikaioiadelphoitois ... adelphois.
       k.t.l.: [3464]1
     * Hoia Theou tis ouranios ; angelos.: [3465]1
     * Hoion kakon he Rhomaion trephei: [3466]1
     * Ou gar hoimai oiketen echein ton philochriston, eidota ten charin
       ten pantas eleutherosasan: [3467]1
     * Ou dei idiotikous psalmous legesthai en te ekklesia.: [3468]1
     * Ou dunaton pausasthei apo sou, ean me plerophoreses epithumian sou:
       [3469]1
     * Oude gar thaumatourgon en thaumastos monon, alla kai phainomenos
       haplos polles egeme charitos; kai touto ho prophetes: [3470]1
     * Oude gar tote touto hen, all eleutherous isos epetrepon ginesthai:
       [3471]1
     * Ousia: [3472]1
     * Houtos estinalethos anoigonmetranmetros: [3473]1
     * Palin Herodias mainetai, palin tarassetai, palin orcheitai, palin
       epi pinaki ten kephalen tou Ioannou zetei labein.: [3474]1
     * Panta hosa echei ho huios kai to pneuma, ek tou patros echei, kai
       auto to einai.: [3475]1
     * Pantes hoi theoi ton ethnon daimonia: [3476]1
     * Paulos: [3477]1
     * Panarion: [3478]1
     * Parakalomen autas, axiomen genesthai prostatidas hemon? pollen gar
       echousin parrhesian ouchi zosai monon, alla kai teleutesasai; kai
       pollo mallon teleutesasai.: [3479]1
     * Paredidou tonlogon tois tes sunodou proedrois: [3480]1
     * Pater, huios, monogenes huios: [3481]1
     * Patriarches: [3482]1
     * Pelagios.: [3483]1
     * Pempso auton pros humas: [3484]1
     * Pentaglottos: [3485]1
     * Pentekoste: [3486]1
     * Peri hierosunes: [3487]1 [3488]2
     * Peri metron kai stathmon: [3489]1
     * Peri stephanon: [3490]1
     * Peri tes enanthropeseos tou log'ou: [3491]1
     * Peri ton dodeka lithon: [3492]1
     * Peri ton topikon onomaton ton en te theia graphe: [3493]1
     * Peri tou biou tes makarias Makrines.: [3494]1
     * Peri psuches kai anastaseos meta tes idias adelphes Makrines
       dialogo?s: [3495]1
     * Piston onta to poiesanti auton.: [3496]1
     * Pleres kai teleios estin ho pater, kai pleroma theotetos estin ho
       Huios .: [3497]1
     * Pneumatomachoi: [3498]1
     * Poiema, ktisma ex ouk onton.: [3499]1
     * Polumorphos: [3500]1
     * Pollakis haimaton rhuseis ex eikonon gegonasi.: [3501]1
     * Polles suzeteseos genomenes: [3502]1
     * Pro chronon kai aionon: [3503]1
     * Pros areskeian tou Theou: [3504]1
     * Pros ten drun,: [3505]1
     * Pros tous legontas phusei kai ou gnome ptaiein tous anthropous
       logoi pente: [3506]1
     * Prothesis.: [3507]1
     * Proslepsis: [3508]1
     * Prosopa,: [3509]1
     * Proskunesis.: [3510]1
     * Proskuneitaihos ekeinaontahaperpisteuetai.: [3511]1
     * Prospheromen soi ten lophiken tauten kai anaimakton latreian:
       [3512]1
     * Prospheromen soi, Despota, ten phoberan tauten kai anaimakton
       thusian: [3513]1
     * Purgos: [3514]1
     * Rabdos,: [3515]1
     * Sakkos,: [3516]1
     * Su de hemas epopteusis anothen hileos, kai ton hemeteron diexagois
       logon kai bion, k. t.l.: [3517]1
     * Su hei Petros, kai epi taute te petra: [3518]1
     * Sunodos edemousa: [3519]1
     * Sunodos lestrike: [3520]1
     * Suntagmakanonon: [3521]1
     * Sussomos kaisunaimos autou.: [3522]1
     * Soma: [3523]1
     * Soma hagion: [3524]1
     * Soma Christou: [3525]1
     * Saras apo: [3526]1
     * Skeuophulaktion, diakonikon: [3527]1
     * Stoai basilikai: [3528]1
     * Stoicharion, sticharion: [3529]1
     * Sunapheia: [3530]1
     * Ta hagia ton hagion, ta aduta, hierateion,: [3531]1
     * Ta hagia tois hagiois: [3532]1
     * Ta enkainia: [3533]1
     * Ta presbeia tes times: [3534]1
     * Tamustikasumbola... meneiepites proteras ousias kaitouschematos
       kaitoueidous, kaihorataestikaihapta, oiakaiproteronhen.: [3535]1
     * Tas phaulas autou kai bebelous kainophonias .: [3536]1
     * Teleion anthropon eilephe: [3537]1
     * Ten hagian kai homoousion Triada, ton alethinon Theon hemon, oHu
       prepei pasa doxa eis tous ; aionos ton aionon.: [3538]1
     * Ten parthenon Marian hiketeuousa boethenai: [3539]1
     * Ti emoi kai soi, gunai: [3540]1
     * Ti gar allo to en kolpois semainei, he ten gnesian ek tou patros
       tou huiou gennesin?: [3541]1
     * Ti peri tou neo phusousi, tou par autois, triton anatrapentos ,
       egeiromenou de oude nun: [3542]1
     * To gunaion.: [3543]1
     * To gennommenon [ek sou: [3544]1
     * To kuriotaton: [3545]1
     * To mega thauma tes oikoumenes: [3546]1
     * To pneuma to hagion, ho pempsei ho pater en to onomati mou.:
       [3547]1
     * To poiema exothen tou poiountos estin ... ho de huios idion tes
       ousias gennema esti; dio kai to men poiema ouk ananke aei einai,
       hote gar bouletai ho demiourgos ergazetai, to de gennema ou
       boulesei hupokeitai, alla te's ousias estin idiotes .: [3548]1
     * Ton mentoi Kostantinoupoleos episkopon echein ta presbeia tes
       times, meta ton tes Rhomes episkopon, dia to einai auten nean
       Rhomen: [3549]1
     * Toteedoxetois apostolois kaitois presbuterois sunhole te ekklesia:
       [3550]1
     * Tes hagias kaiphrikodestates prokeimenes thusias: [3551]1
     * Tes deuteras endoxou kai phoberas autou parousias: [3552]1
     * Tes theotokou: [3553]1
     * Tautes de tes aristes philosophias erxato, oHus tines legousin,
       Helias ho prophetes kai Ioannes ho baptistes: [3554]1
     * Tachugraphoi: [3555]1
     * Tines: [3556]1
     * Touto to soteriodei: [3557]1
     * Touto gar poieite phesin, eis ten emen anamnesin. Ouk allen
       thusian, kathaper ho archiereus tote, alla ten auten aei poioumen?
       mallon de anamnesin ergazometha thusias: [3558]1
     * Touto ou mikron momon Kurillo, kai te ton Alexandreon ekklesia
       eirgasato: [3559]1
     * Touton men gar huion onta tou Theou proskunoumen; tous de marturas
       , hos mathetas kai mimetas tou kuriou agapomen axios , k. t. l:
       [3560]1
     * Tria kephalaia: [3561]1
     * Tria sungegrapse biblia kata ton hagion euangelion kai kata tes
       euagous ton Christianon threskeias: [3562]1
     * Tropoi huparxeos: [3563]1
     * Trogomengarautoutensarkakaipinomenautoutohaima,
       koinonoiginomenoidiates enanthropeseos kaites aisthetes zoes
       toulogoukaites sophias.
       Sarkagarkaihaimapasanautoutenmustikenepidemian: [3564]1
     * Treis hupostaseis: [3565]1
     * Treptos phusei hos ta krismata: [3566]1
     * Tropikoi: [3567]1
     * Huion: [3568]1
     * Phusei.: [3569]1
     * Phos hilaron hagias doxes: [3570]1
     * Phallobateis: [3571]1
     * Pheugei pantachou to legein, ten enosin, all onomazei ten
       sunapheian, oHusper estin ho exothen: [3572]1
     * Phelonion, phailonion: [3573]1
     * Phthartolatrai: [3574]1
     * Philodakru: [3575]1
     * Phusiologein emauto ouk epitrepo: [3576]1
     * Photisteria,: [3577]1
     * Photistes: [3578]1
     * Chaire, kecharitomene;hokurios metasou, eulogemenesuengunaixin:
       [3579]1
     * Charitismou, euangelismou, ensarkoseos: [3580]1
     * Cheirotonia, kathiersis: [3581]1
     * Choros, bema,: [3582]1
     * Chrisma: [3583]1
     * Christon philosophia, he hupsele philos: [3584]1
     * Christou basileias edoxen an tis phantasiousthai eikona, onar t
       einai all ouch huper to ginomenon: [3585]1
     * Christou basileias edoxenantis phantasiousthaieikona, onartheinai
       all' ouch hupar to ginomenon: [3586]1
     * Chronikon kanonon pantodape historia: [3587]1
     * Chorepiskopoi: [3588]1
     * Psephismati koino homou panton klerou te phemi kai laou: [3589]1
     * Psuche alogos: [3590]1
     * Psuche, enthumesis, pneuma: [3591]1
     * a: [3592]1
     * aig: [3593]1
     * aiguptos: [3594]1
     * authentia: [3595]1
     * autotheos: [3596]1 [3597]2
     * autotheos ,: [3598]1
     * autos: [3599]1
     * autokineton: [3600]1
     * haute he pistis ton pateron, haute he pistis ton apostolon, pan'tes
       houto pisteuomen, hoi orthodoxoi houto pisteuousin, anathema to me
       houto pisteuonti, k.t.l.: [3601]1
     * adelphai: [3602]1
     * bios praktikos: [3603]1
     * baptizomenon: [3604]1
     * basileus kai hiereus eimi: [3605]1
     * basileus: [3606]1
     * boethesai: [3607]1
     * boskoi: [3608]1
     * gegraptai: [3609]1
     * gunai: [3610]1
     * ge: [3611]1
     * genethlia: [3612]1 [3613]2
     * genethlion: [3614]1
     * gennetheis: [3615]1
     * gennesia, gennesis,: [3616]1
     * gennetos: [3617]1
     * giase kai poiese ton men arton touton soma agion tou Christou sou.:
       [3618]1
     * gnapheus: [3619]1
     * gnorizomen: [3620]1
     * gnorizomenon: [3621]1
     * gnoristikai iphiotetes,: [3622]1
     * gonuklinontes: [3623]1
     * gumnastikos: [3624]1 [3625]2
     * dechesthai: [3626]1
     * delosis kai aletheia: [3627]1
     * diptuchos: [3628]1
     * doxa theou: [3629]1
     * duo phuseis: [3630]1
     * daimonia: [3631]1
     * deuteros Theos: [3632]1
     * delon elegen; horaios kallei para tous huious ton anthropon.:
       [3633]1
     * deloi me einai auton ktisma, alla gennema tou patros ; xenon gar
       epi tes theotetos autou to legesthai ktisma. Ta gar panta
       ektisthesan hupo tou patros dia tou huiou, ho de huios monos ek tou
       patros aidios egennethe; dio prototokos esti pases ktiseos ho Theos
       logos ;, atreptos ex atreptou.: [3634]1
     * dia theon kai threskeian hen epenesen: [3635]1
     * dia to heinai auten: [3636]1
     * diakonos: [3637]1
     * dio legei: [3638]1
     * diairesis: [3639]1
     * diptucha nekron: [3640]1
     * dogmatikos: [3641]1
     * dogmatikos.: [3642]1
     * douleia: [3643]1
     * ei me tis eietai tous kollous kai tous tuphlous iasasthai, kai
       daimonontas ephorkizein en Bethseida kai en Bethania tais komais
       ton megiston ergon einai: [3644]1
     * eikon: [3645]1
     * eikonostasis: [3646]1
     * eileo: [3647]1
     * eis: [3648]1 [3649]2
     * eis heauton kai peri episkopon: [3650]1
     * eis erga autou: [3651]1
     * eis ten polin: [3652]1
     * eis ten polin.: [3653]1
     * eis ton Orthron: [3654]1
     * eileton,: [3655]1
     * eipomen monogamous kathistasthai: [3656]1
     * eita klinas ton auchena legei;: [3657]1
     * heis estin ek pneumatos kai phuches kai somatos ,: [3658]1
     * eudokias: [3659]1
     * eulogeson: [3660]1
     * euche-i,-i: [3661]1
     * earai diataxeis: [3662]1
     * zone: [3663]1
     * theanthropos: [3664]1 [3665]2
     * theianboulesin: [3666]1
     * theothenempneustheisa: [3667]1
     * theodochos: [3668]1
     * theopator: [3669]1
     * theotokos: [3670]1 [3671]2 [3672]3 [3673]4
     * theophoros,: [3674]1
     * theophania: [3675]1
     * theria.: [3676]1
     * thesauros atimetos: [3677]1
     * thusiasterion, hagia trapeza: [3678]1
     * itoumenos hemin hamartematon aphesin, aioniou te basileias
       apolausin.: [3679]1
     * kenosis: [3680]1
     * kidaris: [3681]1
     * konche: [3682]1
     * kai: [3683]1
     * kai horasthai, hen de to ex autou kai adiaireton einai to apaugasma
       autou: [3684]1
     * kai somatos: [3685]1
     * kai somatos, homoiousion to Patri kata ten theoteta, kai omoousion
       ton auton emin kataten anthropoteta, kata panta homoion emin choris
       hamartias.: [3686]1
     * kai: [3687]1
     * katholike: [3688]1
     * kaine kuriake: [3689]1
     * kanonizomena: [3690]1
     * kanonika biblia tes kaines kai palaias diathekes .: [3691]1
     * kanonika: [3692]1
     * kat antiphrasin: [3693]1
     * kat eudokian: [3694]1
     * kata ten anthropoteta: [3695]1
     * kata ten theoteta: [3696]1
     * keimeliarchai: [3697]1
     * keruttomen.: [3698]1
     * kiborion: [3699]1
     * klerikoi marturion,: [3700]1
     * koimesis,: [3701]1
     * koine ekdosis: [3702]1
     * koinos bios: [3703]1
     * krotos: [3704]1
     * krupsis: [3705]1
     * krasis, sunchusis ,: [3706]1
     * krouo: [3707]1
     * ktisis: [3708]1
     * ktesis: [3709]1
     * ktiston: [3710]1
     * kuriake ton hagion panton marturesanton: [3711]1
     * kuriaketes orthodoxias: [3712]1
     * labouron: [3713]1
     * latres: [3714]1
     * laphuron: [3715]1
     * legei: [3716]1
     * legei ten psuchen sundemiourgeisthaito somati: [3717]1
     * logoi theologikoi: [3718]1
     * logoisteliteutikoi: [3719]1
     * logos: [3720]1 [3721]2 [3722]3
     * laos: [3723]1
     * laurai: [3724]1
     * laura: [3725]1
     * labein: [3726]1
     * leipsana: [3727]1
     * leos: [3728]1
     * leitos: [3729]1
     * leitourgia: [3730]1 [3731]2
     * leitourgiai: [3732]1
     * leitourgiatonkatechoumenon: [3733]1
     * leitourgiatonpiston: [3734]1
     * leitourgein: [3735]1
     * leitourgoi Theou.: [3736]1
     * leitourgoi.: [3737]1
     * litaneiai: [3738]1
     * logike latreia: [3739]1
     * logopater: [3740]1 [3741]2
     * ma ton Dia: [3742]1
     * mandra: [3743]1
     * men ton eiso tes ekklesias, ego de ton ektos hupo theou
       kathestamenos episkopos han eien: [3744]1
     * me exeinai de autois meta cheirotonian agamois housin eti epi gamon
       erchesthai: [3745]1
     * me tis ton katechoumenon, me tis ton akroomenon, me tis ton
       apiston, me tis ton heterodoxon: [3746]1
     * men: [3747]1
     * meter Iesou: [3748]1
     * meter tou kuriou: [3749]1
     * mia sesarkomene phusis tou logou. Ho Oeos logos, henotheis sarki
       kath hupostasin, egen'eto anthropos;, sunephthe anthropo. Mia ede
       noeitai phusis meta ten henosin, he autou tou logou sesarkomene. He
       tou kuriou sarx estin idia tou Theou logou, ouch heterou tinos par
       auton.: [3750]1
     * mia phusis: [3751]1
     * mia phusis tou Theou logou sesarkomene: [3752]1
     * mia phusis tou Theoulogou sesarkomene: [3753]1
     * mias phuseos kai ousias ,: [3754]1
     * mia, phusis: [3755]1
     * mone: [3756]1
     * monon: [3757]1
     * monos: [3758]1
     * muesis: [3759]1
     * mallon douleue: [3760]1
     * mallon chresai: [3761]1
     * meter: [3762]1
     * min de to mega pragma kai onoma, Christianous kai einai kai
       onomazesthai.: [3763]1
     * mathein grammata: [3764]1
     * makarios: [3765]1
     * manteon te tois aristois chromenos, autos te on oudamon en te
       techne deuteros: [3766]1
     * marturia: [3767]1
     * marturia,: [3768]1
     * memerismenas kath heautas: [3769]1
     * memnemenoi.: [3770]1
     * menounge: [3771]1
     * metousiosis: [3772]1
     * mede `aner, all anthropiskos euteles .: [3773]1
     * menaia: [3774]1
     * menologia: [3775]1
     * miseo: [3776]1
     * monada en triadi, kai triada en monadi proskunoumenen.: [3777]1
     * monazein: [3778]1
     * monasterion: [3779]1
     * monachos: [3780]1
     * monogenes: [3781]1
     * morphe Theou: [3782]1
     * musterion: [3783]1
     * moria: [3784]1
     * nean Rhomen: [3785]1
     * nika?: [3786]1
     * notha: [3787]1
     * nomos nearos: [3788]1
     * naos: [3789]1
     * naos: [3790]1
     * naus: [3791]1
     * xenones: [3792]1
     * xenodocheia: [3793]1
     * xresis: [3794]1
     * oikodomeso mou ten ekklesian, kai pulai hadou ou katischusousin
       autes: [3795]1
     * oikomenikos patriarches: [3796]1 [3797]2
     * oikoumene: [3798]1
     * hoi apo tes Galaton choras erchomenoi: [3799]1
     * hoi ektos: [3800]1 [3801]2
     * hoi echthroi: [3802]1
     * hoi eiso: [3803]1 [3804]2
     * hoia tis koinos episkopos ek theou dakestamenos , sunodous ton tou
       theou leitourgon sunekrotei: [3805]1
     * ou gar auto ti estin heauto homoousion, all heteron hetero: [3806]1
     * ou gar depou angelon epilambanetai, alla spermatos Habraam
       epilambanetai: [3807]1
     * ou gar pros anatolas to thusiasterion, alla pros dusin hora:
       [3808]1
     * ou dunatai einai episkopos e presbuteros e diakonos e holos tou
       katalogou tou hieratikou: [3809]1
     * ou dokein, all einai chrestos: [3810]1
     * ouden akoes axion: [3811]1
     * ouk ap anthropou, oude di anthropou,: [3812]1
     * ouk en prin gennethe, etoi ktisthe: [3813]1
     * ouranothen kata ton theion apostolon: [3814]1
     * ousia: [3815]1 [3816]2 [3817]3 [3818]4 [3819]5
     * ousiai: [3820]1 [3821]2
     * ousian: [3822]1
     * oute anthropos holos , oute theos, alla theou kai anthropou mixis:
       [3823]1
     * pandektai: [3824]1
     * pantes: [3825]1 [3826]2
     * papas: [3827]1
     * papas,: [3828]1
     * pappas: [3829]1
     * pempso: [3830]1
     * pente menes: [3831]1
     * pecheon: [3832]1
     * po tou nun makariousi me pasai hai geneai: [3833]1
     * pogon: [3834]1
     * panarion, eit oun kibotion iatrikon kai theriodektikon: [3835]1
     * pannuchides.: [3836]1
     * parakletos: [3837]1
     * paraballein ten zoen: [3838]1
     * paraplesion men, all ouch homoousion to Theo: [3839]1
     * paraskeue, pascha staurosimon, hemera tou staurou.: [3840]1
     * partheno kinduneuouse: [3841]1
     * parthenoi suneisaktoi: [3842]1
     * parthenia: [3843]1
     * patera te kai patriarchen Kelestinon ton tes megalopoleos Romes:
       [3844]1
     * pentaglottos: [3845]1
     * pentekonta kai diakosion arithmon: [3846]1
     * pentekoste, hemera tou Pneumatos: [3847]1
     * peri heautou: [3848]1
     * peri hierosunes: [3849]1
     * peri hupotages: [3850]1
     * peri tes enanthropeseos tou logou: [3851]1
     * peri tes sarkoseos tou Theou logou: [3852]1
     * peri ton heteron: [3853]1
     * peristerion: [3854]1
     * perichoresis: [3855]1 [3856]2 [3857]3 [3858]4 [3859]5
     * perichoreo: [3860]1
     * perichorein: [3861]1 [3862]2
     * pege: [3863]1
     * pistos ho logos: [3864]1
     * pneumata: [3865]1
     * pneumatika: [3866]1
     * poieson: [3867]1
     * poietos: [3868]1
     * ponerias: [3869]1
     * pro tes tessarakostes: [3870]1
     * pros;: [3871]1
     * proslepsis: [3872]1
     * prosopon: [3873]1 [3874]2
     * procheiron ton nomon: [3875]1
     * praxis: [3876]1
     * pragmaton: [3877]1 [3878]2
     * presbuteros: [3879]1
     * proslambano: [3880]1
     * protoktistos: [3881]1
     * protoplastos: [3882]1
     * prototokon eipon: [3883]1
     * prototokos: [3884]1 [3885]2 [3886]3
     * prototokos pases ktiseos: [3887]1 [3888]2
     * prototokos ,: [3889]1
     * ptochotropheia, nosokomeia, orphanotropheia, gerokomeia: [3890]1
     * sarkosis: [3891]1
     * sarx: [3892]1 [3893]2
     * sarx egeneto: [3894]1
     * sun: [3895]1
     * sunkrasis: [3896]1 [3897]2
     * sunchusis ton phuseon: [3898]1
     * sunodoi endemousai: [3899]1
     * sunodos endemousa: [3900]1
     * sunodos oikoumenike: [3901]1
     * sunodos penthekte: [3902]1
     * sema: [3903]1
     * soma: [3904]1
     * soma anthropinon: [3905]1
     * soma anthropou: [3906]1
     * semeio, to alethino elencho tos andrias , ten polin humon apo zugou
       tou turannou diasotheisan eleutherosa, k. t. l.: [3907]1
     * sophia: [3908]1 [3909]2
     * speudein hapantachothen tous episkopous ;grammasi timetikois
       prokaloumenos: [3910]1
     * stichoi: [3911]1
     * stichoi --: [3912]1
     * staurophaneia: [3913]1
     * stoa basileios ,: [3914]1
     * sungeneis: [3915]1
     * sun episkopois: [3916]1
     * sunapheia: [3917]1
     * sunegoros: [3918]1
     * suneisaktos: [3919]1
     * sunupostatos: [3920]1
     * schesis: [3921]1
     * schetike henosis: [3922]1
     * ta ektos: [3923]1
     * ta eiso: [3924]1
     * teleios anthropos: [3925]1
     * to on, to hupokeimenon: [3926]1
     * to gunaion: [3927]1 [3928]2
     * to heinai isa Theo: [3929]1
     * to heinai ison Theo: [3930]1
     * to thuein hiereia--ekoluthe para toin adelphoin, all ou to
       lianoton: [3931]1
     * to kurion kai zoopoion, to sunthronon soi to Theo kai Patri, kai to
       monogenei sou Uio, to sumbasileuon, to homoousion te kai sunaidion:
       [3932]1
     * to pneuma hagion: [3933]1
     * ton k'olpon tou patros: [3934]1
     * toparchoi: [3935]1
     * tes ekklesias: [3936]1
     * tes oikoumenikes ekklesias episkopou: [3937]1
     * tom eiso: [3938]1
     * ton hagion kai marturon: [3939]1
     * ton ektos tes ekklesias: [3940]1
     * ton kath hemas sophon hoi men energeian touto: [3941]1
     * ton kata ten oikoumenen ekklesion ten hegemonian: [3942]1
     * ton palaion tinas logious kai epiphaneis epistopous kai
       sungrapheis: [3943]1
     * to humetero suntheraponti: [3944]1
     * to Theo to pater, hina me kai treptos einai nomisthe. Ei gar kalon
       to einai auton patera, ouk aei de en pater, ouk aei ara to kalon en
       auto: [3945]1
     * to semeio: [3946]1
     * taphenta: [3947]1
     * tzanzalon: [3948]1
     * tous archomenous hapantas epeskopei: [3949]1
     * tous presbuterou; houtos ekalese; tote gar teos ekoinonoun tois
       onomasi: [3950]1
     * touto: [3951]1
     * tois ergois: [3952]1
     * tou hupokeimenou.: [3953]1
     * tou Pamphilou: [3954]1
     * tou laou: [3955]1
     * tou somatos: [3956]1
     * toioutoi kai autoi ginontai: [3957]1
     * tropos huparxeos .: [3958]1
     * tropos;apokalupseos: [3959]1
     * trias: [3960]1
     * triakosia muriada epon,: [3961]1
     * trischilious pholeis: [3962]1
     * huios: [3963]1
     * huioites adelphes: [3964]1
     * huiopater: [3965]1
     * pharmakon athanasias, antidotos tou me apothanein, alla zen en
       Christo dia pantos': [3966]1
     * phuseos: [3967]1
     * phusin anthropou eilephe,: [3968]1
     * phusis: [3969]1 [3970]2 [3971]3 [3972]4
     * phusis,ousia: [3973]1
     * phthartos: [3974]1
     * phobera: [3975]1
     * phusike henosis: [3976]1 [3977]2
     * charis: [3978]1
     * chaire: [3979]1
     * cheirothesia: [3980]1 [3981]2
     * choros: [3982]1
     * psuche logike: [3983]1
     * psuche: [3984]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Hebrew Words and Phrases

     * : [3985]1
     * : [3986]1
     * 'vtst: [3987]1
     * 't: [3988]1
     * 'vh: [3989]1 [3990]2
     * hs?: [3991]1
     * yltslm : [3992]1
     * n: [3993]1 [3994]2
     * qnny: [3995]1
     * rvv': [3996]1
     * tntk: [3997]1
     * tphntsm: [3998]1
     * tvyshrp: [3999]1
     * ?rz: [4000]1
     * shch: [4001]1
     * sh'r kphyshy: [4002]1
     * , chiton,: [4003]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of German Words and Phrases

     * Chorrock: [4004]1
     * Das Geistesleben der Chinesen, Japaner, und Indier: [4005]1
     * Das eben ist der Fluch der bösen That,: [4006]1
     * Das heilige Osterfest ist das christliche Fest schlechthin. Es ist
       nicht blos Hauptfest, sondern das Fest, das einmal im Jahre
       vollstandig auftritt, aber in allen andern Festen von irgend einer
       Seite wiederkehrt, und eben dadurch diese zu Festen macht. Nannte
       man doch jeden Festtag, ja sogar jeden Sonntag aus diesem Grunde
       dies paschalis: [4007]1
     * Dass sie, fortzeugend, immer Böses muss gebären: [4008]1
     * Die Lehre des Athanasius: [4009]1
     * Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter: [4010]1
     * Die Stätte, die ein guter Mensch betrat,: [4011]1
     * Die Zeit Constantins des Gr: [4012]1
     * Die angeblichen Schriften des Areop. Dionysius übersetzt und
       erklärt: [4013]1
     * Die christliche Kirche vom vierten bis zum sechsten Jahrhundert:
       [4014]1
     * Die jüdischen Heiligthümer: [4015]1
     * Dies cinerum, caput jejunii: [4016]1
     * Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der Ketzereien, etc., his auf
       die Zeiten der Reformation: [4017]1
     * Feria quinta paschae, dies natalis eucharistiae, dies viridium:
       [4018]1
     * Fleisch: [4019]1
     * Geschichte der Kirche: [4020]1
     * Geschichte der Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit: [4021]1
     * Geschichte der bildenden Künsten bei der christlichen Völkern, i.
       p. 61 sqq., and Ferd. von Quast: Die Basilika der Alten: [4022]1
     * Geschichte der christl. Philosophie: [4023]1
     * Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. 26; Mattes, Ueber die Ketzertaufe,
       in the Tübingen Quartalschrift: [4024]1
     * Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen liesse: [4025]1
     * Ist eingeweiht; nach hundert Jahren klingt: [4026]1
     * Kanzel: [4027]1
     * Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen: [4028]1
     * Pabst: [4029]1
     * Papst: [4030]1
     * Rössler's Bibliothek der Kirchenväter: [4031]1
     * Schicksale der augustinischen Anthropologie von der Verdammung des
       Semipelagianismus auf den Synoden zu Orange und Valence, 529, bis
       zur Reaction des Mönchs Gottschalk für den Augustinimus, in
       Niedner's "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theologie: [4032]1
     * Sein Wort und seine That dem Enkel wieder: [4033]1
     * Seine ganze persönliche Erscheinung, der Mangel an innerer Haltung
       in seinem Benehmen gegen Heiden und Christen, die stete Unruhe und
       schwärmerische Aufregung, in welcher er sich befand, wenn er von
       Tempel zu Tempel eilte, auf allen Altären opferte und nichts
       unversucht liess, um den heidnischen Cultus, dessen höchstes
       Vorbild er selbst als Pontifex maximum sein wollte, in seinem
       vollen Glanz und Gepränge, mit alten seinen Ceremonien und
       Mysterien wieder herzustellen, macht einen Eindruck, der es kaum
       verkennen lässt, wie wenig er sich selbst das Unnatürliche und
       Erfolglose eines solchen Strebens verbergen konnte: [4034]1
     * Ueber das Verhältniss der heidnischen und christlichen Ethik auf
       Grund einer Vergleichung des ciceronianischen Buches De officiis:
       [4035]1
     * Unde traditionem apostolicam permansisse, ut in die vigiliarum
       Paschae ante noctis dimidium populos dimittere non liceat,
       expectantes adventum Christi: [4036]1
     * Vermischte Schriften: [4037]1
     * Vorlesungen über Dogmengeschichte: [4038]1
     * Vorlesungen über die Dogmengeschichte: [4039]1
     * Was wär' ein Gott der nur von aussen stiesse,: [4040]1
     * Weibsbild: [4041]1
     * maunds: [4042]1
     * quadragesimae: [4043]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of French Words and Phrases

     * (L'église et l'empire romain au IV: [4044]1
     * A.: [4045]1
     * De Broglie: [4046]1
     * Histoire de la civilisation: [4047]1
     * Histoire générale de la civilization en Europe (Deuxième leçon, p.
       45 sq. ed. Bruxelles, 1850): "S'il n'eût pas été une église, je ne
       sais ce qui en serait avenu au milieu de la chute de l'empire
       romain .... Si le christianisme n'eût été comme dans les premiers
       temps, qu'une croyance, un sentiment, une conviction individuelle,
       on peut croire qu'il aurait succombé au milieu de la dissolution de
       l'empire et de l'invasion des barbares. Il a succombé plus tard, en
       Asie et dans tous le nord de l'Afrique, sous une invasion de méme
       nature, sous l'invasion des barbares musulmans; il a succombé
       alors, quoiqu'il fût à l'état d'institution, d'église constituée. A
       bien plus forte raison le même fait aurait pu arriver au moment de
       la chute de l'empire romain. Il n'y avait alors aucun des moyens
       par lesquels aujourd'hui les influences morales s'établissent ou'
       résistent indépendamment des institutions, aucun des moyens par
       lesquels une pure vérité, une pure idée acquiert un grand empire
       sur les esprits, gouverne les actions, détermine des événemens.
       Rien de semblable n'existait au IV: [4048]1
     * Je ne crois pas, qu'excepté saint Paul, aucun homme ait contribué
       davantage, par sa parole comme par ses écrits, à organiser, à
       interpréter, a répandre le christianisme; et, après saint Paul, nul
       apparemment, non pas même le glorieux, l'invincible Athanase, n'a
       travaillé d'une manière aussi puissante à fonder l'unité
       catholique: [4049]1
     * La philosophie de saint Augustin: [4050]1
     * Le maître de la prose chrétienne pour tous lea siècles suivants:
       [4051]1
     * On ne saurait le méconnaître, de l'Augustinianisme corrompu, mais
       enfin de l'Augustinianisme procède le Protestantisme. Car, sans
       parler de Wiclef et de Huss, qui, nourris de saint Augustin,
       soutiennent, avec le réalisme platonicien, la doctrine de la
       prédestination; Luther et Calvin ne font guére autre chose, dans
       leurs Principaux ouvages, que cultiver des semences
       d'Augustinianisme: [4052]1
     * Quaestiones Hieronymianae: [4053]1
     * Si la philosophie est la recherche de la verité, jamais sans doute
       il ne s'est rencontré une âme plus philosophe que celle de saint
       Augustin. Car jamais âme n'a supporté avec plus d'impatience les
       anxiétés du doute et n'a fait plus d'efforts pour dissiper les
       fantômes de l'erreur: [4054]1
     * Si une critique toujours respectueuse, mais d'une inviolable
       sincérité, est une des formes les plus hautes de l'admiration,
       j'estime, au contraire, n'avoir fait qu'exalter ce grand coeur, ce
       psychologue consolant et ému, ce métaphysicien subtil et sublime,
       en un mot, cet attachant et poétique génie, dont la place reste
       marquée, au premier rang, parmi le maîtres de la pensée humaine, à
       côté de Platon et de Descartes, d'Aristote et de saint Thomas, de
       Leibniz et de Bossuet: [4055]1
     * Souvenirs d'un Voyage dans la Tartarie, le Thibet, et la Chine,
       pendant les années: [4056]1
     * cet ouvrage unique, souvent imité, toujours parodié, où il s'accuse
       se condamne et s'humilie, prière ardente, récit entraînant,
       métaphysique incomparable, histoire de tout un monde qui se reflète
       dans l'histoire d'une âme: [4057]1
     * e: [4058]1 [4059]2 [4060]3 [4061]4
     * et au commencement du V: [4062]1
     * mendier: [4063]1
     * que Muce avait egalé par son obeissance celle d'Abraham: [4064]1
     * siècle, c'est l'église chrétienne qui a sauvé le christianisme;
       c'est l'église avec ses institutions, ses magistrats, son pouvoir,
       qui s'est défendue vigoureusement contre la dissolution intérieure
       de l'empire, contre la barbarie, qui a conquis les barbares, qui
       est devenue le lien, le moyen, le principe de civilisation entre le
       monde romain et le monde barbare.: [4065]1
     * siècle, pour donner aux idées, aux sentiments personels, une
       pareille autorité. Il est clair qu'il fallait une société fortement
       organisée, fortement gouvernée, pour lutter contre un pareil
       désastre, pour sortir victorieuse d'un tel ouragan. Je no crois pas
       trop dire en affirmant qu'à la fin du IV: [4066]1
     * siècle, vol. ii. p. 25) finds the principal quality of the mind of
       Athanasius in "un rare mélange de droiture de sens et de subtilité
       de raisonnement. Dans la discussion la plus compliquée rien ne lui
       échappait, mais rien no l'ébranlait. Il démêlait toutes les nuances
       de la pensée de son adversaire, en pénétrait tous les détours; mais
       il ne perdait jamais de vue le point principal et le but du débat
       .... Unissant lea qualités des deux écoles, il discutait comme un
       Grec et concluait nettement comme un Latin. Cette combinaison
       originale, relevée par une indomptable fermeté de caractère, fait
       encore aujourd'hui le seul mérite qu' à distance nous puissions
       pleinement apprécier dans sea écrits: [4067]1
     * surplis: [4068]1
     __________________________________________________________________

            This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
               Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
                   generated on demand from ThML source.

References

   1. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p0.1
   2. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p0.1
   3. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi-p1.2
   4. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p0.1
   5. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p0.1
   6. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p0.1
   7. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p0.1
   8. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix-p1.2
   9. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii-p1.2
  10. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix-p1.3
  11. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi-p1.2
  12. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p0.1
  13. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p0.1
  14. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p0.1
  15. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xx-p0.1
  16. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p0.1
  17. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p0.1
  18. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p0.1
  19. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xx-p0.1
  20. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p0.1
  21. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p0.1
  22. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p0.1
  23. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p0.1
  24. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p0.1
  25. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p0.1
  26. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p0.1
  27. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p0.1
  28. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p0.1
  29. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p1.2
  30. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p0.1
  31. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p0.2
  32. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxi-p0.1
  33. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p0.1
  34. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.viii-p0.1
  35. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p0.1
  36. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p0.2
  37. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p0.1
  38. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p0.1
  39. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p0.1
  40. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x-p1.2
  41. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p0.1
  42. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p0.2
  43. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p0.1
  44. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p0.2
  45. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p0.1
  46. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p0.1
  47. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.xiii.xii-p18.1
  48. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=1&scrV=3#iii.xii.xii-p24.3
  49. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=2&scrV=17#iii.xii.xxxvii-p13.2
  50. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=2&scrV=24#iii.vii.xix-p13.2
  51. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=3&scrV=0#iii.x.xv-p14.1
  52. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=3&scrV=15#iii.x.viii-p29.3
  53. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=3&scrV=19#iii.xii.xxxiv-p15.1
  54. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=5&scrV=3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.3
  55. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=6&scrV=4#iii.xi.xv-p56.1
  56. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=8&scrV=21#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.11
  57. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=9&scrV=25#iii.vi.viii-p14.1
  58. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=14&scrV=14#iii.xii.iv-p18.3
  59. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=31&scrV=10#iii.iv.i-p63.3
  60. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=31&scrV=24#iii.iv.i-p63.3
  61. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=50&scrV=1#iii.x.xiv-p30.1
  62. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=50&scrV=25#iii.x.xiv-p30.1
  63. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=50&scrV=26#iii.x.xiv-p30.1
  64. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=12&scrV=15#iii.x.vi-p10.1
  65. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=13&scrV=19#iii.x.xiv-p30.2
  66. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=20&scrV=4#iii.xi.ix-p6.1
  67. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=27&scrV=30#iii.xi.iv-p40.1
  68. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=28&scrV=1#iii.x.xxviii-p6.1
  69. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=28&scrV=6#iii.viii.vi-p10.4
  70. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=28&scrV=15#iii.viii.vi-p10.7
  71. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=28&scrV=30#iii.viii.vi-p10.9
  72. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=28&scrV=39#iii.x.xxviii-p8.4
  73. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=34&scrV=19#iii.vii.xx-p7.2
  74. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=34&scrV=19#iii.x.viii-p40.13
  75. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=34&scrV=28#iii.x.v-p8.1
  76. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=20&scrV=7#iii.viii.iii-p22.1
  77. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=27&scrV=30#iii.vi.iii-p5.1
  78. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=6&scrV=1#iii.vii.i-p15.1
  79. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=12&scrV=6#iii.iv.i-p63.1
  80. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=18&scrV=15#iii.vii.xx-p7.3
  81. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=18&scrV=15#iii.x.viii-p40.14
  82. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=18&scrV=20#iii.vi.iii-p5.2
  83. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=19&scrV=2#iii.xi.iv-p12.1
  84. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=19&scrV=11#iii.x.xiv-p12.1
  85. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=22&scrV=22#iii.x.xv-p14.2
  86. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=12&scrV=0#iii.xiii.ix-p88.2
  87. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=13&scrV=6#iii.vi.xv-p25.3
  88. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=14&scrV=22#iii.vi.iii-p5.3
  89. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=104&scrV=0#iii.xii.xxxviii-p22.2
  90. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Josh&scrCh=6&scrV=3#iii.x.xvi-p6.1
  91. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Josh&scrCh=24&scrV=32#iii.x.xiv-p30.3
  92. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Judg&scrCh=16&scrV=7#iii.iv.iii-p64.6
  93. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Judg&scrCh=100&scrV=14#iii.xi.ix-p10.2
  94. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Sam&scrCh=16&scrV=6#iii.xi.iv-p12.4
  95. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Sam&scrCh=21&scrV=0#iii.xi.xi-p4.1
  96. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Sam&scrCh=2&scrV=18#iii.xii.xxix-p15.1
  97. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=3&scrV=5#iii.iv.i-p63.4
  98. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=7&scrV=23#iii.xi.iv-p14.1
  99. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=8&scrV=1#iii.x.xvi-p6.2
 100. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=19&scrV=8#iii.x.v-p9.1
 101. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=3&scrV=13#iii.x.viii-p19.5
 102. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=13&scrV=21#iii.x.xiv-p13.1
 103. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=4&scrV=2#iii.xi.iv-p14.2
 104. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=30&scrV=17#iii.xi.iv-p12.5
 105. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=31&scrV=4#iii.vi.iii-p5.4
 106. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=35&scrV=21#iii.x.viii-p19.6
 107. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=100&scrV=5#iii.xi.iii-p5.1
 108. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Job&scrCh=19&scrV=26#iii.x.xiv-p19.2
 109. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Job&scrCh=33&scrV=15#iii.iv.i-p63.2
 110. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=3&scrV=1#iii.x.xxii-p48.1
 111. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=10&scrV=0#iii.xiii.xvii-p20.1
 112. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=19&scrV=5#iii.xi.xv-p56.2
 113. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=25&scrV=0#iii.vi.iv-p10.1
 114. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=25&scrV=6#iii.x.v-p12.2
 115. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=31&scrV=2#iii.x.v-p12.7
 116. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=31&scrV=5#iii.xiii.iv-p36.1
 117. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=33&scrV=15#iii.xii.xxxviii-p13.4
 118. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=34&scrV=0#iii.x.viii-p42.3
 119. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=34&scrV=15#iii.x.v-p12.3
 120. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=40&scrV=0#iii.viii.xiv-p14.1
 121. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=43&scrV=1#iii.x.v-p12.5
 122. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=45&scrV=0#iii.xi.ix-p11.3
 123. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=45&scrV=0#iii.xi.ix-p11.6
 124. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=45&scrV=3#iii.xi.ix-p10.3
 125. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=51&scrV=5#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.4
 126. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=51&scrV=7#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.12
 127. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=72&scrV=10#iii.x.iv-p30.2
 128. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=91&scrV=15#iii.x.v-p12.1
 129. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=96&scrV=5#iii.iv.v-p20.2
 130. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=98&scrV=0#iii.x.xxii-p64.1
 131. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=113&scrV=0#iii.x.xxv-p8.1
 132. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=119&scrV=37#iii.xii.xxxv-p13.3
 133. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=119&scrV=164#iii.vii.xvii-p16.1
 134. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=119&scrV=164#iii.x.ii-p33.1
 135. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=127&scrV=0#iii.xii.xliii-p42.1
 136. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=139&scrV=7#iii.xii.xii-p24.2
 137. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=8&scrV=22#iii.xii.viii-p24.3
 138. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=8&scrV=22#iii.xii.viii-p19.1
 139. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=9&scrV=9#iii.xiii.xx-p22.2
 140. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=10&scrV=19#iii.xii.xliii-p41.2
 141. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=10&scrV=19#iii.xiii.xix-p16.1
 142. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=22&scrV=8#iii.viii.xviii-p45.2
 143. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=1&scrV=6#iii.xii.xxii-p32.1
 144. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=1&scrV=9#iii.x.vi-p8.1
 145. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=1&scrV=31#iii.vii.ix-p7.2
 146. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=2&scrV=10#iii.ix.v-p3.1
 147. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=3&scrV=3#iii.xii.ii-p3.1
 148. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=4&scrV=22#iii.viii.ii-p8.3
 149. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=4&scrV=25#iii.vii.viii-p27.2
 150. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=5&scrV=0#iii.viii.iii-p17.1
 151. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=6&scrV=25#iii.xii.ii-p3.2
 152. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=7&scrV=0#iii.viii.ii-p14.1
 153. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=8&scrV=1#iii.xi.ii-p7.1
 154. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=10&scrV=0#iii.xi.v-p18.1
 155. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=10&scrV=2#iii.xi.iii-p8.1
 156. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=10&scrV=6#iii.viii.xi-p12.1
 157. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=50&scrV=0#iii.iv.i-p3.1
 158. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=50&scrV=0#iii.iv.i-p4.1
 159. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=50&scrV=0#iii.iv.i-p56.5
 160. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=50&scrV=0#iii.vi-p6.2
 161. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=50&scrV=0#iii.xi.xv-p5.1
 162. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=50&scrV=0#iii.xiii.ix-p4.1
 163. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=1&scrV=3#iii.xi.x-p4.1
 164. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=6&scrV=3#iii.x.xxiv-p16.1
 165. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=6&scrV=3#iii.xii.xxvii-p11.2
 166. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=7&scrV=9#iii.xiii.xviii-p44.2
 167. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=20&scrV=2#iii.vii.x-p16.1
 168. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=49&scrV=23#iii.vi.i-p9.1
 169. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=52&scrV=14#iii.xi.ix-p9.2
 170. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=53&scrV=2#iii.xi.ix-p6.2
 171. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=53&scrV=2#iii.xi.ix-p9.2
 172. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=58&scrV=13#iii.x.ii-p7.1
 173. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=63&scrV=16#iii.x.xi-p32.2
 174. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=64&scrV=4#iii.x.xxv-p13.14
 175. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=66&scrV=7#iii.x.viii-p37.9
 176. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=66&scrV=10#iii.x.v-p12.4
 177. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=1&scrV=5#iii.x.viii-p42.5
 178. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=1&scrV=17#iii.vii.x-p16.2
 179. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=10&scrV=11#iii.vi.i-p15.2
 180. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=4&scrV=4#iii.vii.x-p16.4
 181. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=18&scrV=2#iii.xii.xl-p17.2
 182. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=44&scrV=1#iii.x.viii-p37.4
 183. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=2&scrV=4#iii.iv.i-p63.5
 184. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=2&scrV=36#iii.iv.i-p63.5
 185. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=10&scrV=13#iii.x.xi-p14.1
 186. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=10&scrV=20#iii.x.xi-p14.1
 187. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=10&scrV=21#iii.x.xi-p14.1
 188. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=12&scrV=1#iii.x.xi-p14.1
 189. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Hos&scrCh=1&scrV=2#iii.vii.x-p16.3
 190. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Zech&scrCh=12&scrV=1#iii.xii.xxxviii-p13.3
 191. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mal&scrCh=1&scrV=10#iii.x.xxiii-p13.1
 192. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=18#iii.vii.xx-p6.1
 193. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=20#iii.iv.i-p63.6
 194. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=24#iii.vii.xx-p6.1
 195. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p33.4
 196. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=25#iii.vii.xx-p6.1
 197. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=25#iii.vii.xx-p6.2
 198. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p34.2
 199. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p40.2
 200. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p40.10
 201. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=2&scrV=1#iii.x.iv-p29.1
 202. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=13#iii.x.xix-p33.3
 203. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.v.ii-p10.1
 204. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=28#iii.xii.xxxvii-p21.2
 205. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=40#iii.iv.iii-p50.1
 206. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=89#iii.iv.iii-p50.1
 207. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=6&scrV=14#iii.vi.iv-p15.1
 208. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=6&scrV=34#iii.vii.viii-p16.1
 209. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=7&scrV=18#iii.xii.xxxiv-p8.3
 210. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=8&scrV=29#iii.x.viii-p19.7
 211. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=8&scrV=47#iii.x.viii-p32.5
 212. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=20#iii.x.xiv-p21.1
 213. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=20#iii.xi.ix-p19.1
 214. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=15#iii.xii.xxxix-p14.2
 215. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=20#iii.viii.xviii-p45.3
 216. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=11&scrV=18#iii.vii.v-p13.1
 217. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=11&scrV=27#iii.xii.xiv-p60.1
 218. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=31#iii.xii.xii-p24.10
 219. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=32#iii.x.xxiii-p40.2
 220. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=36#iii.xiii.xix-p17.1
 221. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=39#iii.xi.ix-p35.1
 222. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=46#iii.x.viii-p35.3
 223. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=46#iii.x.viii-p20.1
 224. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=0#iii.ix.iv-p15.2
 225. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=0#iii.ix.iv-p14.1
 226. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=38#iii.ix.iv-p15.1
 227. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=15&scrV=2#iii.xi.iv-p12.6
 228. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=0#iii.viii.xiv-p19.2
 229. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#iii.viii.xiii-p9.1
 230. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#iii.viii.xiv-p5.1
 231. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#iii.viii.xiv-p36.1
 232. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=22#iii.xiii.xi-p27.2
 233. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=10#iii.x.xi-p14.2
 234. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=5#iii.vii.xix-p13.3
 235. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=21#iii.vii.iv-p7.2
 236. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=21#iii.vii.viii-p15.1
 237. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=23#iii.iv.iii-p50.3
 238. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=20&scrV=9#iii.x.xxiv-p16.2
 239. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=21&scrV=8#iii.x.v-p12.6
 240. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=21&scrV=8#iii.x.xvi-p6.3
 241. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=22&scrV=30#iii.vii.iii-p6.2
 242. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=19#iii.xiii.xvii-p61.5
 243. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=25&scrV=6#iii.x.v-p22.1
 244. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=25&scrV=34#iii.xii.xxxix-p12.2
 245. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=25&scrV=40#iii.vii.xiii-p19.1
 246. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=25&scrV=46#iii.xii.xxxix-p12.2
 247. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=26&scrV=39#iii.xii.viii-p21.4
 248. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=19#iii.xii.xii-p24.12
 249. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=20#iii.vii.xx-p7.1
 250. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=20#iii.x.viii-p40.6
 251. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=63&scrV=0#iii.vi.xi-p5.1
 252. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=1&scrV=24#iii.x.viii-p19.9
 253. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=3&scrV=31#iii.x.viii-p35.4
 254. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=4#iii.x.viii-p35.10
 255. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=17#iii.xii.xviii-p10.3
 256. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=7&scrV=3#iii.xi.iv-p12.7
 257. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=7&scrV=34#iii.x.xix-p33.1
 258. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=9&scrV=50#iii.x.xix-p33.2
 259. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=12&scrV=52#iii.xii.viii-p21.5
 260. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=13&scrV=32#iii.xii.xxvii-p29.4
 261. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=15&scrV=7#iii.xiii.xvi-p18.1
 262. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.x.viii-p42.6
 263. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=23#iii.x.xxv-p7.1
 264. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=26#iii.x.x-p6.1
 265. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=28#iii.x.viii-p10.2
 266. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=28#iii.x.viii-p11.2
 267. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=28#iii.x.viii-p15.1
 268. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=28#iii.x.viii-p29.2
 269. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=28#iii.x.ix-p10.1
 270. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=28#iii.x.ix-p12.1
 271. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=35#iii.x.viii-p46.6
 272. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=36#iii.x.viii-p35.11
 273. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=38#iii.x.viii-p9.2
 274. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=38#iii.x.viii-p30.1
 275. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=42#iii.x.viii-p15.3
 276. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=42#iii.x.ix-p11.1
 277. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=43#iii.x.viii-p8.2
 278. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=43#iii.x.viii-p14.1
 279. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=43#iii.x.viii-p46.3
 280. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=43#iii.x.viii-p46.7
 281. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=43#iii.xii.xxi-p18.3
 282. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=48#iii.x.viii-p16.1
 283. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=58#iii.x.viii-p35.11
 284. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=1#iii.viii.xiv-p50.2
 285. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=7#iii.vii.xx-p6.3
 286. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=7#iii.x.viii-p34.3
 287. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=7#iii.x.viii-p40.11
 288. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=8#iii.x.iv-p17.1
 289. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=14#iii.xi.xiii-p6.1
 290. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=22#iii.x.x-p9.1
 291. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=22#iii.x.x-p10.1
 292. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=35#iii.x.viii-p32.6
 293. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=35#iii.x.x-p16.1
 294. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=35#iii.xiii.xi-p33.2
 295. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=52#iii.xii.viii-p21.1
 296. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=52#iii.xii.xxvii-p29.3
 297. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=53#iii.xii.xxi-p37.2
 298. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=3&scrV=23#iii.x.viii-p24.1
 299. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=8&scrV=28#iii.x.viii-p19.8
 300. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=10&scrV=38#iii.vii.iii-p4.3
 301. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=11&scrV=38#iii.xi.iv-p12.8
 302. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=12&scrV=35#iii.x.xxviii-p33.1
 303. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.vi.xv-p28.1
 304. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.ix.iii-p7.2
 305. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.xiii.xx-p22.1
 306. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=33#iii.vii.ix-p14.1
 307. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=15&scrV=7#iii.x.xi-p14.3
 308. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=15&scrV=10#iii.x.xi-p29.2
 309. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=16&scrV=27#iii.x.xi-p64.2
 310. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.xii.iii-p22.3
 311. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.xii.xi-p10.2
 312. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=14#iii.xii.xi-p26.4
 313. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=18#iii.xii.xi-p30.1
 314. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=3#iii.x.viii-p32.4
 315. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=4#iii.x.viii-p19.1
 316. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=4#iii.x.viii-p31.3
 317. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=4#iii.xiii.xx-p20.1
 318. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=21#iii.xii.xxi-p22.3
 319. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=5#iii.x.xix-p10.3
 320. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=5#iii.xii.xii-p24.4
 321. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=6#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.13
 322. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=13#iii.xii.xxvi-p34.3
 323. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=27#iii.xii.xli-p19.3
 324. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=30#iii.x.xii-p15.1
 325. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=2#iii.xiii.viii-p15.1
 326. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.xii.xxxv-p16.7
 327. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.xii.xxxviii-p12.2
 328. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.xii.xxxviii-p13.2
 329. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=18#iii.xii.xi-p10.8
 330. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=26#iii.xii.xiv-p59.1
 331. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=37#iii.xii.xlii-p21.2
 332. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=39#iii.xii.xlii-p21.2
 333. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=53#iii.x.xxiv-p46.2
 334. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=57#iii.x.xxii-p35.2
 335. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=3#iii.x.viii-p35.5
 336. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=5#iii.x.viii-p35.5
 337. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=10#iii.x.viii-p35.5
 338. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=8&scrV=26#iii.x.viii-p35.12
 339. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=22#iii.xi.iii-p10.3
 340. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=12&scrV=27#iii.xii.viii-p21.3
 341. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=13&scrV=0#iii.x.xxii-p51.2
 342. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=10#iii.xii.xi-p20.5
 343. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=10#iii.xii.xiv-p45.1
 344. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=16#iii.xii.xiv-p25.1
 345. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=26#iii.xii.xv-p15.4
 346. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=26#iii.xii.xv-p26.2
 347. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=28#iii.xii.viii-p22.1
 348. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=28#iii.xii.xiv-p61.1
 349. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=15#iii.xii.xiv-p43.3
 350. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=26#iii.xii.xv-p15.1
 351. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=26#iii.xii.xv-p26.1
 352. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=26#iii.xii.xv-p26.2
 353. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=5#iii.xii.xiv-p62.1
 354. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=5#iii.xii.xxvi-p56.2
 355. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=21#iii.x.viii-p19.3
 356. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p40.15
 357. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=25#iii.xiii.xi-p27.3
 358. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p17.1
 359. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=20&scrV=22#iii.x.xix-p32.2
 360. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=20&scrV=22#iii.xii.xv-p15.7
 361. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=25&scrV=0#iii.x.xxii-p49.1
 362. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=0#iii.viii.xviii-p45.1
 363. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=13#iii.viii.xviii-p9.3
 364. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=14#iii.x.viii-p18.1
 365. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=14#iii.x.viii-p35.6
 366. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=2&scrV=36#iii.xii.viii-p20.3
 367. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=3&scrV=0#iii.xiii.xi-p14.1
 368. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=5&scrV=3#iii.xii.xii-p24.11
 369. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=5&scrV=14#iii.x.xiv-p22.1
 370. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=7&scrV=8#iii.viii.viii-p6.4
 371. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=7&scrV=16#iii.x.xiv-p30.4
 372. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=13#iii.x.xi-p8.1
 373. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=32#iii.x.xi-p8.1
 374. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=41#iii.x.xi-p8.1
 375. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=10&scrV=17#iii.iv.i-p63.7
 376. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=10&scrV=24#iii.x.viii-p35.13
 377. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=6#iii.x.xii-p9.1
 378. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=15#iii.x.xi-p14.5
 379. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=13&scrV=2#iii.x.xxv-p7.4
 380. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.x.xxi-p17.1
 381. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=0#iii.viii.xviii-p9.1
 382. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=6#iii.viii.xviii-p60.1
 383. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=20#iii.xii.xxix-p10.1
 384. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=22#iii.viii.xviii-p35.1
 385. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=28#iii.viii.xviii-p42.2
 386. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=17&scrV=34#iii.xii.i-p16.1
 387. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=11#iii.x.xiv-p23.1
 388. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=13#iii.x.xiv-p25.1
 389. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=36#iii.x.ii-p23.1
 390. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=23&scrV=26#iii.x.viii-p35.15
 391. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=4#iii.xii.xii-p24.5
 392. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=7#iii.x.xi-p8.2
 393. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=2&scrV=14#iii.xii.xl-p22.1
 394. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=2&scrV=20#iii.x.viii-p21.2
 395. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=24#iii.xii.xxxv-p34.2
 396. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=4&scrV=4#iii.xii.xxxv-p33.1
 397. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=4&scrV=6#iii.xii.xxxv-p21.1
 398. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.x.viii-p28.1
 399. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.x.viii-p43.2
 400. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxix-p4.1
 401. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxix-p5.3
 402. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxiv-p25.1
 403. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxiv-p26.1
 404. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxvii-p4.1
 405. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxvii-p6.3
 406. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.5
 407. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=5&scrV=12#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.4
 408. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=6&scrV=4#iii.x.v-p19.1
 409. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=8#iii.viii.iii-p22.2
 410. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=11#iii.xii.xii-p24.5
 411. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=19#iii.xii.xxxviii-p15.3
 412. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=29#iii.xii.xlii-p8.1
 413. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=29#iii.xii.xlii-p10.8
 414. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=31#iii.xii.xlii-p21.1
 415. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=9&scrV=6#iii.xii.xi-p48.2
 416. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=9&scrV=36#iii.xii.xvi-p47.2
 417. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=12&scrV=1#iii.viii.v-p11.1
 418. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=12&scrV=12#iii.viii.v-p11.1
 419. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=6#iii.x.xxv-p6.8
 420. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=14#iii.xiii.xviii-p18.2
 421. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=14&scrV=20#iii.vii.xix-p20.1
 422. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.xii.xl-p23.5
 423. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.xii.xxxv-p8.2
 424. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=15&scrV=16#iii.x.xxv-p7.5
 425. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=15&scrV=27#iii.x.xxv-p7.6
 426. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=1#iii.viii.v-p12.1
 427. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1608&scrV=0#iii.viii.xviii-p3.1
 428. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1661&scrV=0#iii.vii-p12.1
 429. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1693&scrV=0#iii.xi.v-p3.1
 430. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1698&scrV=0#iii.xiii.v-p3.1
 431. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1719&scrV=0#iii.xii.xxiii-p3.1
 432. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1719&scrV=0#iii.xii.xxix-p3.1
 433. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1730&scrV=0#iii.x.xi-p4.1
 434. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1731&scrV=0#iii.xii.ii-p4.1
 435. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1749&scrV=0#iii.x.xxi-p3.1
 436. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1749&scrV=0#iii.x.xxv-p3.1
 437. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1754&scrV=0#iii.xiii.xiii-p3.1
 438. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1764&scrV=0#iii.xiii.vii-p12.1
 439. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1822&scrV=0#iii.xi.v-p3.2
 440. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1828&scrV=0#iii.xii.iii-p8.1
 441. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1833&scrV=0#iii.xiii.i-p24.4
 442. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1844&scrV=0#iii.xiii.xi-p3.1
 443. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1845&scrV=0#iii.xiii.xi-p3.2
 444. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1847&scrV=0#iii.xiii.i-p32.1
 445. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1847&scrV=0#iii.xiii.v-p3.3
 446. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1848&scrV=0#iii.x.viii-p3.1
 447. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1852&scrV=0#iii.x.viii-p30.6
 448. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1853&scrV=0#iii.xiii.iii-p3.2
 449. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1854&scrV=0#iii.xii.xx-p5.1
 450. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=2#iii.x.xi-p8.3
 451. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=8#iii.xii.xxvi-p34.4
 452. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=9#iii.x.xxv-p13.4
 453. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=9#iii.x.xxv-p13.9
 454. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=9#iii.x.xxvi-p14.1
 455. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.xii.xii-p24.1
 456. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=14#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.14
 457. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=15#iii.x.xxiii-p40.3
 458. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=7#iii.xii.xli-p10.1
 459. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=7#iii.xii.xliv-p28.5
 460. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=1#iii.vi.iv-p5.1
 461. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=11#iii.xii.xii-p24.6
 462. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=0#iii.vi.iii-p13.1
 463. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=1#iii.vii.xix-p17.1
 464. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=1#iii.xiii.xvii-p61.4
 465. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=3#iii.xii.xl-p16.2
 466. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=8#iii.vii.iv-p7.3
 467. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=9#iii.viii.iii-p5.1
 468. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=10#iii.xiii.xix-p62.7
 469. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=21#iii.vi.viii-p15.1
 470. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=25#iii.vii.iv-p7.1
 471. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=25#iii.vii.iv-p7.3
 472. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=26#iii.vii.xix-p9.1
 473. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=29#iii.xii.xliv-p28.4
 474. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=36#iii.vii.xix-p14.1
 475. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=38#iii.vii.iv-p7.3
 476. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=39#iii.vii.xix-p14.1
 477. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=5#iii.x.xi-p12.2
 478. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=4#iii.xi.ix-p34.1
 479. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=21#iii.x.xxiii-p13.2
 480. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=27#iii.ix.i-p15.1
 481. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=28#iii.x.xxiv-p46.3
 482. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=31#iii.xiii.xix-p18.1
 483. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=0#iii.xii.xii-p24.9
 484. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=1#iii.vii.iv-p15.1
 485. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=14&scrV=16#iii.x.xxv-p8.2
 486. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=22#iii.x.viii-p28.2
 487. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=22#iii.xii.xxxvii-p4.2
 488. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=22#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.6
 489. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=25#iii.x.viii-p40.7
 490. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=28#iii.xii.x-p8.2
 491. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=45#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.8
 492. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=21&scrV=0#iii.vi.xi-p5.2
 493. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=0#iii.v.ii-p16.1
 494. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=4#iii.xii.xi-p48.7
 495. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=5&scrV=16#iii.xi.ix-p17.1
 496. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=14#iii.vii.xiv-p12.3
 497. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=4#iii.xii.xiv-p22.3
 498. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=6#iii.vii.xix-p22.1
 499. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=12#iii.x.xxv-p7.7
 500. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=0#iii.v.ii-p16.1
 501. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=13#iii.xii.xii-p24.14
 502. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.iv.i-p56.3
 503. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=0#iii.viii.xiv-p42.2
 504. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=0#iii.viii.xviii-p9.2
 505. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.viii.xvi-p20.1
 506. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.viii.iv-p21.4
 507. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.x.xv-p19.9
 508. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.viii.xiv-p24.1
 509. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.xiii.xvii-p35.2
 510. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.3
 511. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=14#iii.vii.xiv-p29.2
 512. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=3&scrV=1#iii.xiii.xvii-p29.3
 513. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=3&scrV=28#iii.xi.iv-p20.3
 514. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=4&scrV=4#iii.xii.xxi-p18.5
 515. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.xii.xx-p16.7
 516. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=19#iii.vi.xv-p30.1
 517. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.x.xi-p8.4
 518. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=4#iii.xii.xlii-p8.2
 519. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.x.xi-p8.4
 520. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=18#iii.x.xi-p8.4
 521. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.15
 522. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.7
 523. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=8#iii.xii.xli-p19.4
 524. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=8#iii.xii.xxxv-p34.3
 525. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=8#iii.xii.xliv-p28.3
 526. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=8#iii.xii.xxxv-p33.2
 527. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=9#iii.xii.xlii-p15.1
 528. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=10#iii.xii.viii-p24.5
 529. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=3#iii.xiii.xvii-p29.4
 530. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=8#iii.xiii.xvii-p29.4
 531. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=13#iii.xiii.xvii-p29.4
 532. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=16#iii.xii.xii-p24.8
 533. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=11#iii.viii.ii-p4.3
 534. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=11#iii.viii.v-p5.6
 535. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=5#iii.xii.xi-p48.8
 536. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=14#iii.x.xxv-p13.5
 537. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=14#iii.xi.xii-p9.1
 538. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.xii.xii-p24.8
 539. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=19#iii.xii.xii-p24.8
 540. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=32#iii.x.xviii-p6.2
 541. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=6&scrV=12#iii.vii.v-p29.1
 542. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=100&scrV=20#iii.x.xxii-p54.2
 543. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.viii.v-p5.2
 544. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.viii.v-p5.5
 545. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iii.x.xi-p8.5
 546. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=6#iii.xii.xli-p24.2
 547. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=6#iii.xii.xliv-p28.2
 548. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=29#iii.xii.xliv-p28.1
 549. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=6#iii.xii.xi-p10.4
 550. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=6#iii.xii.xi-p48.5
 551. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=6#iii.xii.xxvi-p56.4
 552. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=7#iii.xii.xx-p25.5
 553. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=7#iii.xii.viii-p20.10
 554. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=13#iii.xii.xxxv-p15.1
 555. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.xii.viii-p20.13
 556. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.xii.viii-p24.6
 557. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.xii.xi-p25.3
 558. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.xii.xi-p48.6
 559. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=2&scrV=16#iii.vii.iv-p14.1
 560. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=2&scrV=18#iii.x.xi-p14.6
 561. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=2&scrV=18#iii.x.xi-p29.4
 562. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=4&scrV=4#iii.xi.ix-p28.2
 563. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=4&scrV=6#iii.x.xix-p33.4
 564. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=4&scrV=10#iii.x.viii-p35.8
 565. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=5&scrV=17#iii.vii.xix-p17.2
 566. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=5&scrV=23#iii.xii.xx-p16.6
 567. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=7#iii.viii.xiv-p8.2
 568. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.x.xxv-p13.6
 569. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=4#iii.xii.xlii-p24.1
 570. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=15#iii.vii.xix-p16.2
 571. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=2#iii.vii.xix-p15.1
 572. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=2#iii.viii.iii-p7.1
 573. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=3#iii.vii.xix-p20.2
 574. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=12#iii.vii.xix-p15.1
 575. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=12#iii.viii.iii-p7.1
 576. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=16#iii.xi.xii-p13.2
 577. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=16#iii.xii.xi-p48.9
 578. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=1#iii.vii.i-p21.2
 579. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=3#iii.vii.i-p21.1
 580. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=3#iii.vii.v-p13.2
 581. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=5&scrV=9#iii.viii.v-p12.2
 582. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=5&scrV=14#iii.vii.xix-p16.1
 583. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.xi.xii-p13.3
 584. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=11#iii.x.xxv-p13.7
 585. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=3#iii.xiii.xvii-p29.5
 586. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=5#iii.x.xxi-p17.2
 587. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=5#iii.xiii.xvii-p28.1
 588. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=7#iii.viii.ii-p4.5
 589. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=7#iii.viii.v-p4.1
 590. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=2&scrV=0#iii.viii.v-p13.1
 591. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=2&scrV=13#iii.xii.xi-p48.10
 592. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=2&scrV=14#iii.xiii.vi-p49.1
 593. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=3&scrV=0#iii.x.ii-p12.1
 594. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=3&scrV=5#iii.xii.xii-p24.7
 595. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=3&scrV=8#iii.x.xxv-p13.8
 596. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=12&scrV=0#iii.x.ii-p12.1
 597. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=1&scrV=3#iii.xii.xi-p14.2
 598. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=1&scrV=4#iii.xii.viii-p20.5
 599. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=1&scrV=4#iii.xii.viii-p20.11
 600. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=1&scrV=14#iii.x.xi-p14.4
 601. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=1&scrV=14#iii.x.xi-p57.1
 602. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=2&scrV=16#iii.xii.xxvi-p22.2
 603. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=2&scrV=18#iii.xii.xxvi-p22.6
 604. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=3&scrV=2#iii.xii.viii-p20.7
 605. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=3&scrV=14#iii.xii.xiv-p22.2
 606. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=5&scrV=6#iii.x.xxiii-p13.3
 607. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=5&scrV=8#iii.xii.viii-p21.2
 608. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=6&scrV=4#iii.xi.vii-p4.2
 609. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=7&scrV=1#iii.x.xxiii-p13.3
 610. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=7&scrV=3#iii.xii.xxi-p22.1
 611. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=7&scrV=4#iii.viii.viii-p6.3
 612. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=7&scrV=23#iii.x.xxiii-p13.4
 613. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=8&scrV=2#iii.x.xxv-p7.3
 614. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=8&scrV=6#iii.x.xxv-p7.3
 615. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=9&scrV=13#iii.xi.iv-p12.2
 616. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=14#iii.x.xxiii-p13.4
 617. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=11&scrV=35#iii.xii.ii-p16.1
 618. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=13&scrV=4#iii.vii.xix-p16.3
 619. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=13&scrV=10#iii.x.xxiii-p13.3
 620. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Jas&scrCh=1&scrV=17#iii.xii.xli-p19.2
 621. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=2#iii.x.v-p27.1
 622. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=9#iii.viii.ii-p4.2
 623. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=9#iii.xiii.vi-p49.2
 624. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=5&scrV=1#iii.x.xxi-p17.3
 625. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=5&scrV=8#iii.xiii.viii-p12.2
 626. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=16#iii.x.xv-p14.3
 627. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=1&scrV=8#iii.x.viii-p42.1
 628. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=3&scrV=9#iii.vii.xix-p19.2
 629. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#iii.xii.xii-p25.1
 630. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=18#iii.vii.xix-p19.2
 631. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=1#iii.ix.i-p9.1
 632. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=17#iii.x.xix-p33.5
 633. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=3&scrV=11#iii.viii.ix-p32.1
 634. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=4&scrV=8#iii.xi.xii-p13.1
 635. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=6&scrV=9#iii.x.xiv-p34.1
 636. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=6&scrV=9#iii.xi.iv-p37.1
 637. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=8&scrV=3#iii.x.xi-p29.3
 638. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=11&scrV=15#iii.vi.i-p10.1
 639. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=12&scrV=7#iii.x.xii-p21.1
 640. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=7#iii.x.xi-p8.6
 641. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=10#iii.x.xi-p8.6
 642. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=14&scrV=4#iii.x.xi-p62.3
 643. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=17&scrV=3#iii.viii.xiv-p6.1
 644. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=19&scrV=10#iii.x.xi-p14.7
 645. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=19&scrV=10#iii.x.xi-p29.5
 646. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=20&scrV=6#iii.viii.ii-p4.1
 647. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=22&scrV=8#iii.x.xi-p14.7
 648. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=22&scrV=8#iii.x.xi-p29.5
 649. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=1Macc&scrCh=4&scrV=59#iii.xi.iii-p10.2
 650. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=2Macc&scrCh=6&scrV=0#iii.xii.ii-p16.2
 651. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3?scrBook=Sir&scrCh=1&scrV=4#iii.xii.viii-p19.2
 652. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p3.7
 653. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p7.4
 654. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p1.3
 655. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p16.1
 656. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p11.2
 657. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ii-p5.1
 658. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p14.2
 659. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p35.1
 660. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p98.3
 661. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p65.1
 662. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p65.3
 663. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p3.1
 664. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p14.1
 665. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p15.2
 666. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p15.5
 667. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p16.1
 668. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p16.2
 669. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.v-p20.1
 670. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p7.1
 671. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p12.2
 672. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p13.1
 673. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iii-p7.1
 674. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p18.4
 675. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p11.1
 676. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p11.2
 677. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p12.2
 678. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p15.3
 679. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p20.1
 680. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p22.1
 681. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p23.1
 682. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p8.2
 683. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p33.2
 684. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p1.1
 685. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p10.1
 686. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p19.2
 687. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.7
 688. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p6.1
 689. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p9.1
 690. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p22.3
 691. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p4.2
 692. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p12.1
 693. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p16.2
 694. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p40.1
 695. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p41.1
 696. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p15.2
 697. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p15.3
 698. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p16.1
 699. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p16.3
 700. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p29.2
 701. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p29.5
 702. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p8.1
 703. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p9.1
 704. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.3
 705. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.5
 706. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p3.2
 707. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p11.1
 708. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p13.1
 709. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p29.1
 710. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p59.1
 711. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p61.1
 712. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p6.2
 713. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p6.2
 714. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p7.2
 715. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p24.1
 716. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p46.3
 717. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p54.1
 718. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p56.3
 719. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p57.1
 720. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p57.2
 721. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p57.3
 722. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p58.1
 723. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p59.1
 724. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p59.2
 725. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p59.3
 726. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p5.1
 727. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p24.2
 728. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p20.2
 729. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p5.2
 730. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p28.1
 731. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p32.1
 732. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p32.3
 733. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p10.1
 734. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxi-p12.1
 735. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p23.1
 736. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p24.1
 737. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p62.1
 738. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p19.1
 739. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p20.1
 740. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p4.1
 741. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p48.1
 742. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p48.2
 743. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p17.3
 744. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p4.2
 745. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p7.1
 746. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p7.3
 747. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p23.2
 748. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p26.1
 749. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p30.1
 750. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p30.3
 751. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p31.1
 752. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p74.1
 753. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p82.1
 754. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p15.1
 755. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p7.2
 756. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p18.2
 757. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p6.1
 758. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p18.2
 759. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p17.4
 760. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p12.2
 761. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p4.2
 762. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p9.3
 763. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p10.7
 764. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p42.2
 765. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p23.2
 766. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p83.3
 767. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p12.2
 768. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p1.1
 769. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p3.2
 770. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p4.1
 771. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p4.3
 772. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p6.1
 773. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p7.1
 774. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p7.2
 775. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p8.1
 776. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p9.1
 777. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p10.1
 778. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p12.1
 779. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p13.1
 780. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p15.1
 781. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p16.1
 782. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p16.2
 783. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p17.1
 784. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p19.1
 785. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.2
 786. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.3
 787. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.5
 788. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.8
 789. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p22.1
 790. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p23.1
 791. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p11.3
 792. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p15.6
 793. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p27.4
 794. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p47.1
 795. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p69.5
 796. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p13.1
 797. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p19.1
 798. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p20.1
 799. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p27.1
 800. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p55.1
 801. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p8.4
 802. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p10.1
 803. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p257.1
 804. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p258.1
 805. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p258.2
 806. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p13.1
 807. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p10.1
 808. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p6.3
 809. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.8
 810. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iv-p5.3
 811. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p6.3
 812. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p8.1
 813. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p16.1
 814. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p25.1
 815. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p31.1
 816. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p33.1
 817. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p3.1
 818. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p8.2
 819. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p1.1
 820. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p3.2
 821. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p7.1
 822. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p7.2
 823. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p7.3
 824. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p8.2
 825. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p11.2
 826. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p12.1
 827. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p13.2
 828. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p21.2
 829. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p22.1
 830. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p22.2
 831. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p24.1
 832. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p25.1
 833. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p25.2
 834. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p26.1
 835. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p28.2
 836. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p28.3
 837. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p28.4
 838. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p29.2
 839. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p30.1
 840. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p31.1
 841. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p31.2
 842. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p31.3
 843. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p3.1
 844. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p6.1
 845. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p6.2
 846. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p13.1
 847. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p13.2
 848. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p14.2
 849. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p3.1
 850. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p5.1
 851. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p6.2
 852. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p8.1
 853. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p5.1
 854. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p9.2
 855. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p9.3
 856. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p10.2
 857. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p15.1
 858. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p14.1
 859. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p42.1
 860. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p10.1
 861. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p35.1
 862. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p35.2
 863. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p40.1
 864. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vii-p7.2
 865. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p61.2
 866. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p13.2
 867. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p10.2
 868. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p29.1
 869. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p9.1
 870. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p7.1
 871. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii-p7.3
 872. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p11.3
 873. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p8.2
 874. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p11.3
 875. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p7.4
 876. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p1.1
 877. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p3.1
 878. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p3.6
 879. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p4.1
 880. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p6.1
 881. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p7.1
 882. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p7.2
 883. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi-p6.4
 884. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p16.2
 885. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p22.2
 886. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iii-p7.2
 887. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iii-p13.2
 888. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iv-p9.1
 889. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p15.2
 890. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.10
 891. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p18.5
 892. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p19.1
 893. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ix-p14.1
 894. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ix-p15.1
 895. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ix-p19.2
 896. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p5.1
 897. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p6.2
 898. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p15.5
 899. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p27.1
 900. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p31.1
 901. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p35.1
 902. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p8.3
 903. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p7.1
 904. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p21.5
 905. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p12.1
 906. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p7.1
 907. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p17.1
 908. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p10.4
 909. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p9.1
 910. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p13.1
 911. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p14.1
 912. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p4.1
 913. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p7.1
 914. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p1.2
 915. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p11.1
 916. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p14.1
 917. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p7.2
 918. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p28.4
 919. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p29.1
 920. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p29.4
 921. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p33.2
 922. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p6.2
 923. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p8.2
 924. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.3
 925. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p11.1
 926. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p17.5
 927. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p5.2
 928. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p5.2
 929. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p19.1
 930. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p21.3
 931. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p3.1
 932. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p22.5
 933. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p22.6
 934. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p3.1
 935. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p4.3
 936. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p21.6
 937. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p23.2
 938. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p6.1
 939. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p12.2
 940. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xi-p14.1
 941. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p11.1
 942. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p12.1
 943. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p5.2
 944. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p8.4
 945. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p14.2
 946. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p16.1
 947. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p17.2
 948. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p23.1
 949. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p24.2
 950. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p36.2
 951. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p37.1
 952. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p37.2
 953. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p38.1
 954. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p38.2
 955. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p9.1
 956. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p9.2
 957. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p22.1
 958. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p23.1
 959. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p53.1
 960. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p54.2
 961. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p54.3
 962. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p16.2
 963. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p3.1
 964. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p3.2
 965. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p4.1
 966. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p9.1
 967. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p1.1
 968. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p3.1
 969. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p4.1
 970. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p5.1
 971. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p5.2
 972. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p5.3
 973. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p7.1
 974. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iii-p8.1
 975. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p3.1
 976. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p9.1
 977. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p10.1
 978. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p11.1
 979. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p11.2
 980. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p13.1
 981. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p16.1
 982. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p20.1
 983. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p20.2
 984. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p20.3
 985. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p22.1
 986. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p22.2
 987. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p12.1
 988. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.i-p6.1
 989. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p29.4
 990. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p22.3
 991. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p25.1
 992. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p26.1
 993. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p30.1
 994. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p10.4
 995. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p30.5
 996. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p38.1
 997. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p41.1
 998. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p42.2
 999. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p42.7
1000. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p42.8
1001. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p43.1
1002. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p47.4
1003. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p5.4
1004. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p9.2
1005. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p3.3
1006. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p27.1
1007. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p27.2
1008. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p31.1
1009. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p32.3
1010. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p35.1
1011. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p39.1
1012. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p64.1
1013. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p68.1
1014. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p6.3
1015. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p15.2
1016. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p19.3
1017. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p46.5
1018. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p56.2
1019. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p56.4
1020. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p64.1
1021. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p68.1
1022. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p69.1
1023. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p70.1
1024. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p5.2
1025. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.8
1026. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.12
1027. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p20.1
1028. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p23.2
1029. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p24.4
1030. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p24.5
1031. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p23.1
1032. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p20.3
1033. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p21.1
1034. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p23.3
1035. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p7.1
1036. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p8.1
1037. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p8.2
1038. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p9.1
1039. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p10.1
1040. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p10.2
1041. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p12.1
1042. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p13.1
1043. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p14.1
1044. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p17.1
1045. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p17.2
1046. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p18.1
1047. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p21.1
1048. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p32.2
1049. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p6.1
1050. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p8.2
1051. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p9.1
1052. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p10.2
1053. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p14.1
1054. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p14.2
1055. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p17.1
1056. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p20.1
1057. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xx-p5.1
1058. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxi-p6.2
1059. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxi-p10.1
1060. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p11.2
1061. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p46.1
1062. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p47.1
1063. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p48.2
1064. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p52.1
1065. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p52.3
1066. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p63.1
1067. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p18.1
1068. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p22.1
1069. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p23.1
1070. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p27.3
1071. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p28.1
1072. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p37.1
1073. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p40.1
1074. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p41.1
1075. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p45.1
1076. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p45.2
1077. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p46.1
1078. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p17.2
1079. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p16.2
1080. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p43.2
1081. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p11.2
1082. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.x-p5.1
1083. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.x-p14.2
1084. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p10.1
1085. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p30.2
1086. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p74.2
1087. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p83.1
1088. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p83.2
1089. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p84.2
1090. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p166.1
1091. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p166.3
1092. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p167.2
1093. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p13.3
1094. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p13.5
1095. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p13.6
1096. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p15.2
1097. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p20.2
1098. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p20.3
1099. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p20.4
1100. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p34.1
1101. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p38.1
1102. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p42.2
1103. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p7.3
1104. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.vii-p10.1
1105. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p30.1
1106. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p36.3
1107. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p26.1
1108. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p7.1
1109. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p29.1
1110. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p30.1
1111. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p33.1
1112. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p34.1
1113. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p37.1
1114. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p64.1
1115. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p1.1
1116. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p3.1
1117. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p5.1
1118. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p5.2
1119. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p6.1
1120. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p11.1
1121. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p13.1
1122. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p14.1
1123. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p15.6
1124. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p15.8
1125. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p21.1
1126. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p7.1
1127. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p11.1
1128. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p21.1
1129. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p27.1
1130. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p35.1
1131. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p38.1
1132. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p47.1
1133. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p50.1
1134. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p53.1
1135. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p53.2
1136. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p58.1
1137. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p72.1
1138. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p75.1
1139. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p90.1
1140. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p91.1
1141. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p92.3
1142. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p92.4
1143. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p15.1
1144. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p8.1
1145. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p22.1
1146. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p37.1
1147. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p27.1
1148. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p9.2
1149. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p9.4
1150. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p14.2
1151. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p14.3
1152. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p14.4
1153. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p17.1
1154. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p19.3
1155. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p20.3
1156. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p21.1
1157. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p21.2
1158. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p21.3
1159. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p21.4
1160. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p22.1
1161. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p23.2
1162. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p24.1
1163. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p4.2
1164. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p5.1
1165. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p5.2
1166. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p5.3
1167. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p6.1
1168. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.5
1169. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.6
1170. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p10.2
1171. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p10.3
1172. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p10.5
1173. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p11.1
1174. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p11.2
1175. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p12.1
1176. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p24.1
1177. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p4.3
1178. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p8.2
1179. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p10.3
1180. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.3
1181. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.4
1182. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.6
1183. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.7
1184. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p17.2
1185. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p17.4
1186. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p18.1
1187. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p4.1
1188. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p24.2
1189. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p25.5
1190. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p26.2
1191. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p32.1
1192. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p34.1
1193. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p8.1
1194. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p8.2
1195. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p24.1
1196. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p27.1
1197. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p28.1
1198. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p6.1
1199. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p7.1
1200. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p8.1
1201. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p9.1
1202. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p12.1
1203. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p13.1
1204. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p13.2
1205. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p15.2
1206. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p20.1
1207. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p21.3
1208. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p31.1
1209. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p32.1
1210. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p34.1
1211. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p35.1
1212. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p39.1
1213. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p3.1
1214. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p4.1
1215. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p4.2
1216. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p4.3
1217. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p5.1
1218. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p5.2
1219. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p7.1
1220. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p8.1
1221. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p8.2
1222. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p11.1
1223. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p11.2
1224. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p11.3
1225. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p12.1
1226. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p14.1
1227. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p15.1
1228. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p16.1
1229. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p21.1
1230. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p22.1
1231. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p23.1
1232. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p25.2
1233. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p25.3
1234. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p25.4
1235. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p26.1
1236. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p26.2
1237. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p27.1
1238. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p28.4
1239. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p29.1
1240. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p29.2
1241. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p30.1
1242. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p31.1
1243. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p32.1
1244. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p3.1
1245. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p6.1
1246. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p6.2
1247. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p8.1
1248. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p11.1
1249. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p13.1
1250. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p14.1
1251. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p20.2
1252. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p21.3
1253. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p22.2
1254. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p23.1
1255. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p23.2
1256. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p25.1
1257. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p4.1
1258. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p5.1
1259. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p6.1
1260. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p17.1
1261. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p19.2
1262. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p20.1
1263. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p21.1
1264. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p22.1
1265. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p3.1
1266. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p5.2
1267. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p5.6
1268. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.7
1269. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.9
1270. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.10
1271. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p8.1
1272. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p8.2
1273. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p11.1
1274. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p11.2
1275. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p12.1
1276. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p15.1
1277. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p16.1
1278. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p4.2
1279. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p4.3
1280. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p9.2
1281. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p9.3
1282. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p10.3
1283. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p10.5
1284. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p10.6
1285. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p10.7
1286. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p12.1
1287. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p12.2
1288. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p15.2
1289. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p15.6
1290. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p16.1
1291. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p16.3
1292. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p18.1
1293. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p19.1
1294. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p19.2
1295. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p19.3
1296. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p20.1
1297. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.1
1298. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.3
1299. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.4
1300. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.6
1301. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.9
1302. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.10
1303. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p23.11
1304. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p24.1
1305. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p1.1
1306. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p3.1
1307. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p3.2
1308. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p3.3
1309. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p5.1
1310. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p5.2
1311. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p12.1
1312. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p13.1
1313. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p17.1
1314. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p19.1
1315. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p21.1
1316. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p21.2
1317. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p21.3
1318. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.2
1319. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.5
1320. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.7
1321. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.8
1322. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.9
1323. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.11
1324. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p22.12
1325. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p23.1
1326. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p24.1
1327. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p25.1
1328. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p26.1
1329. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xli-p27.1
1330. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p6.1
1331. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p9.1
1332. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p9.5
1333. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p10.1
1334. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p10.2
1335. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p10.4
1336. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p10.5
1337. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p10.6
1338. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p11.1
1339. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p11.2
1340. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p11.3
1341. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p12.1
1342. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p13.1
1343. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p16.1
1344. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p18.1
1345. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p20.1
1346. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p23.1
1347. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p26.1
1348. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p8.2
1349. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p15.1
1350. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p15.2
1351. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p19.1
1352. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p19.2
1353. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p20.1
1354. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p20.2
1355. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p21.1
1356. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p23.1
1357. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p23.2
1358. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p29.1
1359. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p35.1
1360. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p36.1
1361. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p40.2
1362. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p41.1
1363. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p42.2
1364. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p43.1
1365. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p43.2
1366. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p43.3
1367. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p44.1
1368. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p44.2
1369. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p49.1
1370. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p3.1
1371. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p7.2
1372. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p9.1
1373. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p21.1
1374. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p21.2
1375. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p37.1
1376. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p42.1
1377. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p6.2
1378. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p42.3
1379. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p23.1
1380. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p22.3
1381. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p23.1
1382. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p25.2
1383. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p81.1
1384. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p82.1
1385. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p83.1
1386. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p83.4
1387. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p83.5
1388. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p84.1
1389. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p23.3
1390. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p23.4
1391. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p27.1
1392. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p34.6
1393. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p13.1
1394. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p15.1
1395. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p13.3
1396. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p4.2
1397. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p19.3
1398. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.6
1399. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.7
1400. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p22.2
1401. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p22.3
1402. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p11.4
1403. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p13.1
1404. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p14.3
1405. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p22.3
1406. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p24.1
1407. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p7.3
1408. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p12.1
1409. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p13.1
1410. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p13.4
1411. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p24.2
1412. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p34.3
1413. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p35.6
1414. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.1
1415. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.4
1416. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.7
1417. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p43.7
1418. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p48.5
1419. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.4
1420. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.10
1421. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p68.3
1422. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p68.5
1423. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p69.2
1424. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p69.3
1425. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p1.1
1426. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p3.2
1427. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p3.3
1428. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p3.4
1429. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p3.5
1430. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p4.2
1431. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p5.1
1432. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p7.1
1433. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p8.1
1434. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p9.1
1435. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p11.1
1436. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p14.1
1437. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p14.3
1438. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p14.4
1439. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p17.1
1440. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p18.1
1441. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p21.2
1442. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p28.1
1443. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p36.1
1444. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p41.1
1445. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p41.3
1446. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p41.5
1447. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p42.1
1448. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p42.4
1449. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p43.1
1450. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p45.3
1451. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p47.1
1452. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p57.1
1453. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p59.1
1454. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p60.1
1455. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p60.2
1456. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p60.3
1457. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p60.4
1458. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p61.1
1459. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.1
1460. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.2
1461. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.7
1462. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.12
1463. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.1
1464. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.6
1465. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.8
1466. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.10
1467. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.15
1468. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.16
1469. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.17
1470. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.19
1471. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.23
1472. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p1.1
1473. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p3.1
1474. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p4.5
1475. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p4.6
1476. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p6.2
1477. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p12.2
1478. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p12.8
1479. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p12.10
1480. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p12.11
1481. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p14.1
1482. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p16.2
1483. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p19.2
1484. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p20.1
1485. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p20.3
1486. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p27.1
1487. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p28.1
1488. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p30.2
1489. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p34.1
1490. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p34.4
1491. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p34.6
1492. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p39.3
1493. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p40.1
1494. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p44.1
1495. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p47.1
1496. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p51.1
1497. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p51.2
1498. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p59.1
1499. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p61.1
1500. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p63.1
1501. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p63.3
1502. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p63.6
1503. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p1.1
1504. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p3.1
1505. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p3.2
1506. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p5.1
1507. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p7.1
1508. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p7.2
1509. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p8.2
1510. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p9.2
1511. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p11.1
1512. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p15.1
1513. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p15.3
1514. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p15.4
1515. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p17.1
1516. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p20.2
1517. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p24.1
1518. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.2
1519. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.6
1520. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.7
1521. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.8
1522. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.11
1523. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p28.1
1524. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p29.7
1525. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p29.8
1526. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p30.1
1527. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p31.1
1528. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p32.1
1529. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p32.2
1530. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p35.2
1531. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p36.1
1532. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p36.2
1533. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p38.1
1534. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p38.2
1535. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p261.2
1536. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p264.1
1537. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p268.1
1538. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p268.2
1539. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii-p7.1
1540. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii-p8.1
1541. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p11.5
1542. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p6.4
1543. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p12.2
1544. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p12.3
1545. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p12.4
1546. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p12.5
1547. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iii-p6.3
1548. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p3.2
1549. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p8.7
1550. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p10.1
1551. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p3.1
1552. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p4.1
1553. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p1.1
1554. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p3.1
1555. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p3.3
1556. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p3.4
1557. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p6.1
1558. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p7.2
1559. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p9.1
1560. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p9.2
1561. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p9.3
1562. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p9.4
1563. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p9.5
1564. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p9.6
1565. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p1.1
1566. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p3.1
1567. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p3.2
1568. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p3.3
1569. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p5.1
1570. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p6.1
1571. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p6.3
1572. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p7.1
1573. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p14.1
1574. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvii-p18.1
1575. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p1.1
1576. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p3.1
1577. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p3.2
1578. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p3.3
1579. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p4.1
1580. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p5.1
1581. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p5.2
1582. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p5.3
1583. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p5.4
1584. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p5.5
1585. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p5.6
1586. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p10.1
1587. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p3.2
1588. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p10.2
1589. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p26.1
1590. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p44.5
1591. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p54.1
1592. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p11.3
1593. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.5
1594. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p43.1
1595. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p15.1
1596. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p21.3
1597. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p11.1
1598. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p29.1
1599. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p84.1
1600. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p167.3
1601. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p3.1
1602. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiii-p11.1
1603. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p14.1
1604. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p23.1
1605. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p22.1
1606. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p8.1
1607. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p24.3
1608. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p37.1
1609. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p7.1
1610. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p3.1
1611. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p3.3
1612. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.v-p3.2
1613. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p3.1
1614. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p17.2
1615. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p70.1
1616. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p70.4
1617. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p3.1
1618. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p4.1
1619. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p4.2
1620. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p32.1
1621. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p3.1
1622. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p3.1
1623. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p3.1
1624. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p4.4
1625. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p4.5
1626. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p4.1
1627. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p17.3
1628. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p18.5
1629. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p68.2
1630. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p3.1
1631. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p4.1
1632. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.11
1633. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p9.1
1634. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p20.2
1635. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p5.1
1636. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p3.1
1637. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p11.1
1638. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p8.1
1639. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p11.1
1640. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p65.2
1641. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p65.4
1642. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.v-p23.1
1643. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi-p6.3
1644. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p18.1
1645. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p22.1
1646. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iii-p12.1
1647. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iv-p8.1
1648. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.v-p12.1
1649. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.4
1650. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.7
1651. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.9
1652. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p16.1
1653. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p17.1
1654. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p17.2
1655. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p17.3
1656. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p17.4
1657. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p18.2
1658. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ix-p19.1
1659. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p6.1
1660. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xi-p4.1
1661. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xi-p5.3
1662. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p6.1
1663. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p11.2
1664. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p12.3
1665. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p15.2
1666. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p15.4
1667. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p24.1
1668. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p6.1
1669. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p8.1
1670. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p21.3
1671. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p26.1
1672. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p26.2
1673. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p7.1
1674. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p8.3
1675. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p10.3
1676. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p3.2
1677. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p12.2
1678. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p13.1
1679. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p19.3
1680. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p3.1
1681. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p4.6
1682. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p5.1
1683. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p13.1
1684. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p21.2
1685. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p11.1
1686. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p12.2
1687. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p4.4
1688. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p11.1
1689. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p16.1
1690. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p17.1
1691. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p21.5
1692. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p25.1
1693. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p26.1
1694. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p5.1
1695. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p15.1
1696. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p16.1
1697. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p16.2
1698. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p16.3
1699. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p3.2
1700. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p8.1
1701. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p12.3
1702. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p14.1
1703. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p16.1
1704. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p17.1
1705. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p23.1
1706. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p8.1
1707. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p42.1
1708. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p43.1
1709. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p45.2
1710. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p46.2
1711. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p51.2
1712. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p65.1
1713. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p14.1
1714. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.vi-p3.1
1715. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.vi-p13.1
1716. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.vi-p14.1
1717. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.vi-p14.2
1718. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.i-p6.2
1719. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p29.6
1720. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p14.1
1721. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p22.1
1722. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p7.1
1723. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p9.2
1724. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p13.1
1725. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p14.1
1726. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p10.3
1727. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p9.1
1728. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p32.1
1729. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p32.3
1730. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p33.3
1731. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p5.3
1732. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p3.1
1733. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p26.2
1734. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p55.1
1735. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p80.1
1736. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p6.1
1737. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p18.3
1738. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p7.3
1739. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p24.2
1740. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p46.2
1741. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p51.1
1742. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.11
1743. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p23.1
1744. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p24.1
1745. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p24.3
1746. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p28.1
1747. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p31.1
1748. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p19.1
1749. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p20.1
1750. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p22.1
1751. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p23.2
1752. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p23.4
1753. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p5.4
1754. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p23.1
1755. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p7.2
1756. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p8.1
1757. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p20.1
1758. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p21.2
1759. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p42.1
1760. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p57.1
1761. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p59.1
1762. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p61.1
1763. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p20.1
1764. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p24.1
1765. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p25.2
1766. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p27.4
1767. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p34.1
1768. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.5
1769. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p45.3
1770. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p3.2
1771. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p3.3
1772. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p25.1
1773. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p26.1
1774. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p34.1
1775. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p40.1
1776. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p16.1
1777. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p20.2
1778. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p20.3
1779. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p33.1
1780. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p35.1
1781. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p36.1
1782. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p36.2
1783. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p12.1
1784. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p9.4
1785. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p13.1
1786. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p20.2
1787. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p40.2
1788. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p9.3
1789. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p11.1
1790. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.x-p6.1
1791. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p7.1
1792. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p9.1
1793. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p10.1
1794. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p3.3
1795. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p27.1
1796. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p33.1
1797. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p48.4
1798. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p100.5
1799. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p102.1
1800. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p1.1
1801. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p4.6
1802. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p6.1
1803. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p6.2
1804. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p7.1
1805. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p8.1
1806. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p8.2
1807. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p9.2
1808. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p10.1
1809. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p10.2
1810. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p10.4
1811. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p13.1
1812. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p13.2
1813. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p14.1
1814. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p45.1
1815. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxix-p43.1
1816. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p26.1
1817. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p26.3
1818. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p6.1
1819. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p19.1
1820. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p24.1
1821. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p42.1
1822. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p68.1
1823. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p11.1
1824. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p2.1
1825. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p4.1
1826. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p5.1
1827. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p5.2
1828. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p5.3
1829. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p5.4
1830. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p7.1
1831. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p10.2
1832. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p14.2
1833. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p17.1
1834. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p20.1
1835. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p22.1
1836. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p23.2
1837. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p23.5
1838. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p25.1
1839. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p26.3
1840. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p27.1
1841. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p28.1
1842. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p29.3
1843. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p30.3
1844. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p30.4
1845. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p33.1
1846. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p34.1
1847. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p36.1
1848. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p39.1
1849. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p41.1
1850. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p43.4
1851. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p7.1
1852. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p11.1
1853. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p11.2
1854. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p11.3
1855. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p34.2
1856. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p34.5
1857. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p34.8
1858. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p39.2
1859. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p14.1
1860. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p27.2
1861. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p28.2
1862. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p47.2
1863. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p48.1
1864. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p48.3
1865. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.4
1866. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.3
1867. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p238.1
1868. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p239.1
1869. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p239.2
1870. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p239.3
1871. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#i-p3.3
1872. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#ii-p3.1
1873. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p12.1
1874. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p4.1
1875. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p5.1
1876. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p14.1
1877. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p16.1
1878. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p19.1
1879. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p4.2
1880. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p5.1
1881. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p9.1
1882. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p11.1
1883. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p11.2
1884. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p13.1
1885. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p15.2
1886. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p16.1
1887. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p16.2
1888. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p17.1
1889. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p27.1
1890. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p28.1
1891. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p28.2
1892. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p28.4
1893. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p29.1
1894. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p30.1
1895. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p30.2
1896. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p30.3
1897. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p32.1
1898. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p33.1
1899. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p34.1
1900. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p36.1
1901. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p36.2
1902. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p37.1
1903. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p37.2
1904. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p40.1
1905. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p44.1
1906. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p44.2
1907. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p46.1
1908. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p47.4
1909. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p48.1
1910. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p48.2
1911. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p49.1
1912. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p52.1
1913. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p53.1
1914. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p54.1
1915. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p56.1
1916. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p56.6
1917. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p58.1
1918. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p59.1
1919. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p60.2
1920. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p61.3
1921. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p62.1
1922. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p62.2
1923. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p64.1
1924. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p66.5
1925. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p67.8
1926. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p69.3
1927. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p69.4
1928. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p70.1
1929. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p70.2
1930. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p71.1
1931. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p73.1
1932. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p75.1
1933. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p81.1
1934. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p84.1
1935. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p85.1
1936. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p85.2
1937. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p87.1
1938. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p90.1
1939. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p97.1
1940. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p98.1
1941. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p98.2
1942. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p100.2
1943. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p100.3
1944. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p104.1
1945. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p1.1
1946. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p5.1
1947. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p5.2
1948. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p5.4
1949. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p6.1
1950. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p13.2
1951. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p15.2
1952. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p23.1
1953. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p26.5
1954. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p7.2
1955. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p7.3
1956. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p7.5
1957. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p15.4
1958. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p9.1
1959. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p11.1
1960. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p18.1
1961. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p13.1
1962. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p14.1
1963. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p20.1
1964. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p22.2
1965. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi-p6.1
1966. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi-p10.1
1967. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.i-p7.1
1968. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.i-p12.1
1969. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.i-p15.1
1970. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.i-p15.3
1971. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p3.1
1972. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p5.1
1973. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p5.2
1974. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p6.1
1975. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p10.2
1976. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p12.1
1977. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p15.1
1978. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p24.5
1979. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p26.4
1980. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p27.1
1981. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p28.1
1982. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iv-p3.1
1983. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iv-p5.2
1984. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iv-p5.3
1985. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iv-p7.1
1986. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.v-p4.1
1987. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.v-p6.1
1988. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.v-p8.1
1989. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p10.1
1990. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p11.1
1991. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p11.2
1992. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p11.3
1993. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p14.1
1994. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p18.1
1995. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p18.2
1996. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p22.1
1997. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p5.1
1998. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p6.1
1999. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p8.1
2000. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p12.1
2001. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p13.1
2002. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p17.1
2003. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p10.1
2004. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.8
2005. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p26.1
2006. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ix-p16.1
2007. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p3.1
2008. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p6.5
2009. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.x-p7.1
2010. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p7.1
2011. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p9.1
2012. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiii-p3.1
2013. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p3.1
2014. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p5.1
2015. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.8
2016. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.13
2017. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.16
2018. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p12.1
2019. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p9.1
2020. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p10.1
2021. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p10.2
2022. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p13.2
2023. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p20.1
2024. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p25.1
2025. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p27.3
2026. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p6.3
2027. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p3.2
2028. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p3.1
2029. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p7.1
2030. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.10
2031. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p4.1
2032. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.viii-p8.1
2033. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p10.1
2034. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p11.1
2035. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xi-p8.1
2036. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p7.1
2037. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p20.1
2038. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p24.1
2039. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p24.2
2040. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p25.1
2041. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p25.2
2042. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p26.1
2043. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p27.2
2044. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p27.3
2045. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p30.1
2046. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p32.1
2047. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p42.3
2048. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xix-p5.2
2049. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xix-p14.1
2050. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p10.1
2051. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.i-p10.2
2052. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p7.1
2053. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p10.1
2054. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p10.2
2055. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p11.1
2056. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p12.1
2057. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p8.1
2058. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.i-p6.3
2059. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p11.1
2060. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p11.2
2061. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p12.2
2062. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p12.3
2063. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p13.1
2064. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p13.2
2065. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p13.3
2066. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p14.1
2067. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p16.1
2068. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p26.1
2069. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vi-p7.1
2070. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vi-p8.2
2071. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p22.1
2072. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p7.1
2073. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p8.1
2074. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p25.1
2075. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p7.1
2076. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p19.1
2077. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p26.2
2078. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p27.1
2079. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p18.1
2080. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p28.1
2081. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.i-p8.1
2082. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p8.1
2083. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p9.1
2084. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p9.2
2085. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p12.1
2086. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p4.1
2087. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p17.1
2088. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p18.2
2089. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vi-p7.1
2090. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p6.2
2091. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p7.1
2092. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p9.1
2093. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p9.1
2094. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p9.1
2095. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p16.1
2096. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p18.1
2097. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.x-p18.1
2098. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xi-p5.1
2099. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p163.1
2100. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p30.1
2101. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p5.1
2102. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p6.1
2103. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p16.2
2104. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p19.1
2105. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p42.4
2106. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p50.1
2107. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p52.1
2108. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p5.1
2109. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p9.1
2110. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p9.2
2111. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p11.1
2112. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p9.1
2113. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p15.1
2114. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p16.4
2115. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p19.1
2116. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p22.1
2117. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p22.2
2118. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p26.1
2119. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p27.1
2120. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p27.2
2121. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p27.4
2122. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p27.6
2123. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p6.1
2124. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p7.1
2125. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p7.2
2126. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p7.1
2127. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p14.1
2128. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p20.1
2129. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p22.3
2130. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p58.1
2131. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p9.1
2132. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p19.1
2133. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p21.2
2134. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p41.2
2135. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p5.1
2136. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p6.1
2137. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p39.1
2138. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p52.1
2139. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p60.1
2140. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p5.1
2141. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p6.1
2142. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p1.1
2143. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p35.1
2144. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p5.1
2145. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p6.1
2146. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p52.2
2147. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p8.1
2148. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p35.3
2149. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p9.1
2150. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p1.1
2151. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p27.1
2152. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xi-p5.4
2153. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p5.1
2154. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p33.1
2155. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p21.7
2156. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p28.1
2157. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p3.6
2158. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p4.1
2159. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p7.1
2160. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p1.1
2161. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p5.1
2162. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p5.4
2163. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p7.4
2164. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p9.1
2165. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p39.2
2166. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p39.5
2167. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.1
2168. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.8
2169. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.17
2170. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p55.3
2171. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p12.1
2172. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p8.1
2173. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p9.1
2174. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p11.1
2175. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p33.4
2176. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p18.1
2177. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p19.3
2178. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p19.5
2179. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p21.2
2180. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p21.3
2181. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p21.4
2182. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p21.5
2183. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p21.6
2184. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p22.1
2185. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p22.2
2186. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p23.1
2187. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p24.1
2188. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p25.1
2189. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p25.2
2190. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p25.3
2191. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p25.4
2192. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p25.5
2193. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p3.1
2194. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p21.2
2195. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p21.4
2196. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p24.1
2197. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p4.1
2198. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p29.1
2199. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p46.1
2200. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p5.3
2201. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p22.1
2202. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p27.1
2203. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p6.2
2204. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p4.1
2205. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p7.2
2206. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiv-p23.1
2207. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p4.1
2208. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p5.2
2209. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p37.1
2210. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p7.1
2211. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p18.1
2212. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p19.1
2213. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p19.2
2214. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p23.1
2215. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p23.3
2216. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p24.1
2217. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p3.1
2218. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p9.1
2219. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p16.1
2220. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p6.2
2221. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p11.2
2222. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p55.1
2223. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p56.1
2224. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p56.2
2225. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p92.2
2226. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p7.1
2227. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p24.4
2228. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p17.3
2229. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p24.1
2230. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p16.1
2231. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p27.3
2232. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p1.1
2233. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p4.1
2234. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p6.1
2235. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p13.1
2236. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p14.2
2237. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.10
2238. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p11.2
2239. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p15.5
2240. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p69.4
2241. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p8.5
2242. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p24.3
2243. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p254.1
2244. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p255.1
2245. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p16.1
2246. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii-p7.2
2247. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p11.4
2248. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p12.3
2249. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p13.1
2250. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p13.2
2251. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p13.3
2252. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p8.3
2253. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iii-p11.2
2254. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p98.4
2255. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p100.1
2256. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p6.2
2257. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p5.1
2258. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p17.1
2259. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iii-p8.1
2260. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p11.1
2261. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vii-p14.1
2262. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p25.2
2263. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii-p8.4
2264. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p21.4
2265. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p10.1
2266. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iv-p5.1
2267. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p16.2
2268. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p26.3
2269. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p31.2
2270. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p31.3
2271. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p33.3
2272. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vi-p3.1
2273. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p8.4
2274. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p10.1
2275. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p10.2
2276. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p3.1
2277. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p8.1
2278. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p11.1
2279. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p21.1
2280. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p27.1
2281. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p28.1
2282. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p12.2
2283. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ix-p14.3
2284. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p7.1
2285. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p3.1
2286. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p7.1
2287. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p9.4
2288. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p1.1
2289. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p4.1
2290. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p6.1
2291. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p7.1
2292. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p7.4
2293. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p9.1
2294. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p10.1
2295. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p12.1
2296. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p13.2
2297. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p14.1
2298. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p20.1
2299. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p21.1
2300. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p22.1
2301. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p24.1
2302. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p24.2
2303. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p25.1
2304. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p29.3
2305. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p29.5
2306. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p32.1
2307. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p33.1
2308. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p33.4
2309. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p5.1
2310. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p7.1
2311. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p10.1
2312. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p10.2
2313. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p10.3
2314. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p12.1
2315. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p13.1
2316. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xviii-p6.1
2317. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p7.5
2318. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p9.2
2319. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.1
2320. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.6
2321. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p11.2
2322. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p12.1
2323. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p13.1
2324. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p16.4
2325. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p21.1
2326. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p3.1
2327. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p5.3
2328. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p6.5
2329. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p11.1
2330. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p15.2
2331. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p5.3
2332. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p16.1
2333. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p21.4
2334. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p4.4
2335. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p22.4
2336. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p8.1
2337. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p19.1
2338. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p20.1
2339. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p23.1
2340. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p3.2
2341. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p4.2
2342. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p3.1
2343. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p15.1
2344. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p15.2
2345. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p17.1
2346. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p21.1
2347. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p23.2
2348. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p37.3
2349. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p22.2
2350. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p7.1
2351. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p13.1
2352. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p13.2
2353. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p14.1
2354. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p29.3
2355. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p22.2
2356. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p15.1
2357. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p8.2
2358. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p26.1
2359. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p30.3
2360. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p35.16
2361. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.6
2362. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.7
2363. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.8
2364. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p39.1
2365. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.5
2366. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.12
2367. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.16
2368. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p42.4
2369. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p3.4
2370. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p11.2
2371. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p31.2
2372. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p62.1
2373. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiii-p14.1
2374. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiii-p14.2
2375. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p18.6
2376. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p19.1
2377. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p46.4
2378. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p61.1
2379. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.1
2380. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.10
2381. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p25.1
2382. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p16.1
2383. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p17.1
2384. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xx-p13.1
2385. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p27.2
2386. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p14.1
2387. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p10.1
2388. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p11.5
2389. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p23.1
2390. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p28.1
2391. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p4.2
2392. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p84.3
2393. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p85.1
2394. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p166.2
2395. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p13.2
2396. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p20.1
2397. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p32.1
2398. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p34.2
2399. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p47.1
2400. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p23.2
2401. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p23.4
2402. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p18.1
2403. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p100.1
2404. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p100.2
2405. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p100.3
2406. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p1.1
2407. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p7.2
2408. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p12.1
2409. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p13.1
2410. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p13.2
2411. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p13.3
2412. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p4.1
2413. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p4.2
2414. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p4.3
2415. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p4.5
2416. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p11.2
2417. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p9.1
2418. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p8.1
2419. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.1
2420. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.2
2421. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.3
2422. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.7
2423. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.8
2424. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p9.10
2425. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p10.1
2426. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p3.1
2427. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p4.1
2428. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p6.1
2429. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p8.1
2430. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p10.2
2431. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p15.1
2432. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p16.1
2433. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p18.2
2434. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p18.3
2435. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p19.1
2436. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p19.2
2437. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p29.1
2438. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p28.2
2439. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p16.6
2440. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p11.1
2441. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p12.1
2442. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p13.1
2443. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p9.4
2444. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p40.1
2445. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p6.3
2446. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p10.1
2447. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p16.2
2448. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p21.1
2449. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p23.1
2450. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p24.2
2451. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p24.3
2452. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p24.5
2453. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p25.2
2454. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p39.1
2455. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p31.1
2456. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p34.1
2457. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p25.1
2458. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p56.1
2459. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vii-p7.1
2460. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vii-p10.1
2461. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vii-p11.1
2462. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p8.1
2463. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p14.1
2464. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p16.1
2465. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p22.5
2466. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p23.3
2467. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p4.1
2468. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p14.2
2469. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p4.1
2470. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p10.1
2471. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p11.3
2472. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p12.1
2473. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p13.2
2474. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p14.1
2475. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p16.1
2476. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p21.1
2477. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiii-p27.1
2478. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p12.1
2479. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p19.2
2480. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.1
2481. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.4
2482. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p20.9
2483. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p1.1
2484. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p5.1
2485. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p6.1
2486. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p8.2
2487. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p11.5
2488. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p12.3
2489. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p12.6
2490. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p13.2
2491. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p14.1
2492. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p14.2
2493. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p15.2
2494. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p15.3
2495. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p18.2
2496. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p21.1
2497. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p22.2
2498. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p22.4
2499. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p1.1
2500. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p3.1
2501. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p7.2
2502. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p7.4
2503. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p8.2
2504. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p8.3
2505. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p8.6
2506. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p8.7
2507. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p8.8
2508. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p8.10
2509. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p9.1
2510. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p9.2
2511. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p10.1
2512. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p12.2
2513. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p13.2
2514. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p15.1
2515. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p18.1
2516. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p18.6
2517. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p19.1
2518. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p21.1
2519. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p26.1
2520. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p27.3
2521. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p33.1
2522. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p35.1
2523. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p35.3
2524. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p35.4
2525. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.2
2526. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.5
2527. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p36.6
2528. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p37.1
2529. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p43.4
2530. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p43.6
2531. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p45.1
2532. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p46.1
2533. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p46.3
2534. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p50.1
2535. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p51.1
2536. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p54.1
2537. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p55.1
2538. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p55.2
2539. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.2
2540. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.5
2541. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.6
2542. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.7
2543. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.9
2544. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p59.1
2545. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p65.1
2546. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p66.1
2547. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p67.1
2548. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p68.1
2549. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p68.4
2550. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p68.6
2551. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p69.1
2552. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p70.1
2553. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p70.3
2554. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p61.2
2555. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p62.1
2556. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.10
2557. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p40.2
2558. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p6.2
2559. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p8.6
2560. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.4
2561. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.5
2562. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.9
2563. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p33.1
2564. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p35.1
2565. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p21.1
2566. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p260.1
2567. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p261.1
2568. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p261.3
2569. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p261.4
2570. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p261.5
2571. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p262.1
2572. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p262.2
2573. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.ii-p4.1
2574. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p20.1
2575. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p24.1
2576. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p3.2
2577. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p21.6
2578. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p28.2
2579. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p1.1
2580. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p3.4
2581. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p3.5
2582. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p4.2
2583. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p4.4
2584. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p7.2
2585. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p8.1
2586. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.2
2587. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.4
2588. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p10.5
2589. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p11.3
2590. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p12.2
2591. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p19.1
2592. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p21.2
2593. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p21.3
2594. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p19.1
2595. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p39.3
2596. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.18
2597. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.2
2598. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p25.4
2599. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p34.2
2600. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p55.4
2601. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p57.1
2602. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p62.1
2603. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p62.6
2604. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p15.1
2605. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p15.2
2606. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p3.2
2607. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p10.1
2608. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p15.1
2609. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p24.1
2610. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p28.3
2611. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p61.1
2612. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p90.2
2613. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.ii-p5.3
2614. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p1.1
2615. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p5.1
2616. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p6.1
2617. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p6.2
2618. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p6.3
2619. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p6.4
2620. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p7.1
2621. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p7.2
2622. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p11.1
2623. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p11.2
2624. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p11.3
2625. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p11.4
2626. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p11.5
2627. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p11.6
2628. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p13.1
2629. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p15.1
2630. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p15.3
2631. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p16.1
2632. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p16.2
2633. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p17.1
2634. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p18.1
2635. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p21.1
2636. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p22.1
2637. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p26.4
2638. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p27.1
2639. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p32.1
2640. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p34.1
2641. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p34.2
2642. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p35.1
2643. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p37.1
2644. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p37.2
2645. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p37.3
2646. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p40.1
2647. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p42.2
2648. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p45.1
2649. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p50.2
2650. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p52.1
2651. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p52.2
2652. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p55.1
2653. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p58.1
2654. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p64.1
2655. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p64.3
2656. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p64.4
2657. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p64.5
2658. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p65.5
2659. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p65.6
2660. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p66.1
2661. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p68.2
2662. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p71.1
2663. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p77.1
2664. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p77.2
2665. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p7.1
2666. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p7.4
2667. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p3.1
2668. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p3.2
2669. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p4.1
2670. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p4.2
2671. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p1.1
2672. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p5.1
2673. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p6.3
2674. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p6.4
2675. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p7.1
2676. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p7.6
2677. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p11.1
2678. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p11.3
2679. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p12.1
2680. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p15.1
2681. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p18.2
2682. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iii-p3.1
2683. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iii-p4.1
2684. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p5.1
2685. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p5.2
2686. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p22.3
2687. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p23.1
2688. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p24.1
2689. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p24.4
2690. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p12.1
2691. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p12.2
2692. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p4.1
2693. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p4.2
2694. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiii-p6.2
2695. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p13.1
2696. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p18.1
2697. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p6.1
2698. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p21.1
2699. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xi-p15.1
2700. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.ii-p14.1
2701. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vi-p12.1
2702. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p35.2
2703. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p16.1
2704. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p44.2
2705. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p44.3
2706. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p50.1
2707. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p8.2
2708. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p26.1
2709. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p7.1
2710. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p8.3
2711. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p11.2
2712. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ii-p9.3
2713. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p9.2
2714. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p20.1
2715. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xi-p8.2
2716. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.vi-p3.1
2717. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p12.1
2718. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p16.1
2719. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p14.1
2720. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p23.4
2721. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p23.5
2722. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p24.3
2723. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p29.5
2724. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p9.3
2725. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p9.5
2726. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p10.1
2727. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p10.2
2728. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p10.4
2729. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p24.1
2730. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p25.1
2731. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p25.2
2732. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p25.4
2733. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p26.1
2734. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p27.1
2735. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p30.1
2736. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p3.1
2737. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p11.1
2738. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p11.2
2739. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p15.2
2740. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p15.3
2741. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p18.1
2742. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p5.1
2743. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p21.2
2744. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p27.1
2745. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p13.2
2746. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p25.1
2747. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvi-p28.3
2748. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p20.1
2749. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p21.1
2750. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxvii-p22.1
2751. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p5.4
2752. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p14.1
2753. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p3.1
2754. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p4.1
2755. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p5.1
2756. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p9.1
2757. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p13.1
2758. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p15.1
2759. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p15.3
2760. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p15.5
2761. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xl-p17.1
2762. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p14.2
2763. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p14.3
2764. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p14.4
2765. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p14.5
2766. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p18.1
2767. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p10.1
2768. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p8.1
2769. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p9.1
2770. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p15.1
2771. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p16.2
2772. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p66.2
2773. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p67.1
2774. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p7.1
2775. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p23.1
2776. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p37.3
2777. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p38.1
2778. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p38.2
2779. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p46.2
2780. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.3
2781. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.6
2782. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p4.7
2783. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p51.3
2784. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p24.2
2785. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p9.1
2786. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p9.2
2787. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p11.1
2788. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p12.1
2789. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p12.2
2790. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p12.3
2791. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p12.4
2792. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p12.5
2793. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.i-p80.1
2794. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.ii-p7.1
2795. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iv.ii-p7.2
2796. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p9.1
2797. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p9.2
2798. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p11.1
2799. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p12.1
2800. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p12.2
2801. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p12.3
2802. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p12.4
2803. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#v.i-p12.5
2804. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p11.2
2805. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p10.1
2806. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvi-p1.1
2807. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p37.1
2808. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiii-p17.1
2809. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p11.1
2810. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.i-p12.2
2811. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p7.3
2812. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p3.2
2813. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p3.5
2814. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p41.2
2815. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p167.1
2816. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p10.5
2817. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p3.2
2818. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p10.1
2819. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.1
2820. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.2
2821. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p12.5
2822. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p13.1
2823. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p14.1
2824. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxii-p14.2
2825. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p34.2
2826. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p6.1
2827. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p6.1
2828. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p23.1
2829. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p53.1
2830. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p7.5
2831. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p1.2
2832. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p3.3
2833. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p8.1
2834. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p23.1
2835. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xi-p6.1
2836. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p5.1
2837. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p41.1
2838. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p5.1
2839. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p25.1
2840. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p10.1
2841. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p35.1
2842. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.7
2843. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xvi-p7.1
2844. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xv-p5.2
2845. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p9.1
2846. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p61.2
2847. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p67.9
2848. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p73.2
2849. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p79.1
2850. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.i-p10.1
2851. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.v-p3.4
2852. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.i-p4.1
2853. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p7.1
2854. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p35.2
2855. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p6.4
2856. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.iv-p5.1
2857. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.10
2858. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p30.2
2859. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p32.2
2860. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p33.1
2861. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.1
2862. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p39.4
2863. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p18.5
2864. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p5.1
2865. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p23.3
2866. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p35.4
2867. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p10.1
2868. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p11.1
2869. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p46.2
2870. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p47.2
2871. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p37.2
2872. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p39.1
2873. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p11.1
2874. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvii-p17.1
2875. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p6.1
2876. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p10.1
2877. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p13.1
2878. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p13.4
2879. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p36.1
2880. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p52.1
2881. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p11.2
2882. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p14.6
2883. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p19.2
2884. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p48.3
2885. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p30.2
2886. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p56.3
2887. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p17.2
2888. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.1
2889. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.2
2890. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p10.8
2891. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p22.3
2892. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xlii-p9.2
2893. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p26.1
2894. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p22.4
2895. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p23.2
2896. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p25.1
2897. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p83.6
2898. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p34.7
2899. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xiv-p13.2
2900. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p11.1
2901. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p15.4
2902. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p43.2
2903. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p17.3
2904. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p46.1
2905. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p39.1
2906. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p17.1
2907. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p8.5
2908. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.vii-p8.6
2909. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p7.2
2910. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p5.3
2911. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.ix.v-p5.2
2912. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p21.8
2913. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p28.3
2914. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p4.3
2915. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p4.5
2916. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xix-p7.3
2917. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p1.2
2918. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p10.1
2919. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p11.2
2920. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p12.1
2921. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p12.3
2922. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p13.1
2923. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p14.1
2924. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p3.5
2925. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p35.3
2926. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p62.2
2927. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p44.1
2928. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p61.2
2929. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p55.5
2930. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p22.1
2931. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p14.3
2932. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p18.1
2933. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p18.2
2934. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p18.3
2935. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ii-p30.1
2936. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p20.2
2937. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p20.3
2938. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p12.3
2939. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p16.2
2940. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p43.1
2941. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p51.3
2942. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p31.1
2943. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p32.3
2944. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p13.1
2945. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p24.13
2946. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p48.1
2947. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.5
2948. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p11.1
2949. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p46.1
2950. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p8.1
2951. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p27.2
2952. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p48.2
2953. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.12
2954. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.13
2955. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p12.1
2956. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p47.3
2957. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p35.1
2958. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p31.2
2959. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p36.2
2960. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p6.2
2961. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p35.4
2962. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p35.2
2963. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p10.1
2964. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p45.1
2965. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p9.2
2966. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.16
2967. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p14.2
2968. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p8.2
2969. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p18.3
2970. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p18.1
2971. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p22.2
2972. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p13.1
2973. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p14.1
2974. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p15.1
2975. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p7.2
2976. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.1
2977. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.2
2978. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p35.7
2979. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p21.1
2980. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p51.2
2981. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p30.6
2982. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p30.3
2983. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p51.1
2984. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p26.1
2985. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p19.2
2986. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p19.1
2987. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p30.5
2988. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p30.4
2989. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.3
2990. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.4
2991. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p47.1
2992. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.1
2993. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p22.2
2994. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p72.2
2995. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p15.4
2996. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p19.2
2997. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p47.3
2998. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p14.1
2999. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p17.3
3000. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.11
3001. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p8.1
3002. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p26.3
3003. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p24.2
3004. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p24.3
3005. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p35.1
3006. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.1
3007. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p16.3
3008. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p48.3
3009. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p27.2
3010. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p28.2
3011. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p24.1
3012. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.8
3013. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p15.1
3014. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p26.1
3015. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p31.1
3016. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p35.3
3017. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p25.3
3018. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p12.2
3019. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p46.5
3020. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p18.2
3021. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p36.1
3022. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p27.1
3023. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p29.1
3024. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p41.1
3025. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p29.2
3026. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvii-p9.1
3027. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p28.1
3028. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p20.1
3029. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p37.1
3030. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p31.1
3031. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p57.3
3032. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p32.1
3033. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p24.2
3034. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p24.3
3035. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p14.2
3036. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p14.1
3037. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p15.1
3038. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p10.1
3039. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p29.1
3040. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p80.1
3041. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p11.1
3042. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iii-p6.1
3043. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p35.2
3044. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p8.1
3045. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p50.1
3046. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p31.1
3047. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p47.1
3048. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p27.1
3049. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p24.1
3050. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p25.2
3051. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p22.1
3052. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.1
3053. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.3
3054. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.2
3055. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.7
3056. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p8.1
3057. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p5.1
3058. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p18.1
3059. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p26.1
3060. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p17.1
3061. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p11.1
3062. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.3
3063. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p13.1
3064. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p24.2
3065. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.4
3066. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.6
3067. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p7.4
3068. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.2
3069. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.3
3070. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.10
3071. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p63.9
3072. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p19.1
3073. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p43.5
3074. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p18.2
3075. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.6
3076. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p21.1
3077. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p32.1
3078. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p30.5
3079. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.5
3080. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.8
3081. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p40.1
3082. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.5
3083. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p29.2
3084. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.9
3085. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p7.5
3086. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.11
3087. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p5.1
3088. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p31.1
3089. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p44.6
3090. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p47.1
3091. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p25.2
3092. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.10
3093. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.6
3094. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p27.2
3095. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.1
3096. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.2
3097. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p23.2
3098. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p29.2
3099. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p10.2
3100. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.3
3101. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.6
3102. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p5.2
3103. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p32.1
3104. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.2
3105. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p13.3
3106. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p14.4
3107. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p5.7
3108. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p20.1
3109. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p22.4
3110. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p8.4
3111. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p28.2
3112. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p29.6
3113. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.3
3114. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.4
3115. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.3
3116. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.2
3117. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p5.5
3118. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.5
3119. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p32.2
3120. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p14.1
3121. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p27.2
3122. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p7.1
3123. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p15.1
3124. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p24.1
3125. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.6
3126. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p43.2
3127. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p24.1
3128. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p32.2
3129. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p46.2
3130. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p16.2
3131. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.viii-p6.2
3132. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p25.2
3133. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p25.4
3134. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.5
3135. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p20.2
3136. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.6
3137. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p19.2
3138. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p34.2
3139. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p7.6
3140. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p34.1
3141. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.4
3142. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.1
3143. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.11
3144. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p33.3
3145. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p46.1
3146. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.4
3147. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p18.4
3148. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p19.1
3149. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p45.3
3150. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p29.1
3151. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p64.1
3152. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p14.1
3153. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xi-p8.1
3154. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p11.1
3155. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p23.1
3156. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xv-p25.1
3157. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.1
3158. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p16.1
3159. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p6.1
3160. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.1
3161. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p27.1
3162. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p16.1
3163. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p30.1
3164. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p19.1
3165. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p37.2
3166. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.iii-p6.1
3167. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p14.1
3168. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p14.1
3169. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p16.1
3170. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p42.1
3171. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p14.4
3172. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p13.1
3173. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p51.1
3174. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p12.1
3175. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p26.1
3176. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p25.1
3177. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxix-p6.1
3178. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p7.1
3179. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p21.1
3180. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p13.1
3181. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p42.1
3182. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p10.1
3183. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p22.4
3184. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p43.1
3185. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p26.2
3186. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p20.1
3187. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.5
3188. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p31.1
3189. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p37.1
3190. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p36.1
3191. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p35.1
3192. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p33.1
3193. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p11.4
3194. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p21.3
3195. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p16.3
3196. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p18.1
3197. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p6.1
3198. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p16.2
3199. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.11
3200. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p13.2
3201. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p8.3
3202. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p30.3
3203. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p34.1
3204. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p15.1
3205. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p9.1
3206. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iii-p5.1
3207. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p30.1
3208. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p8.1
3209. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p14.2
3210. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p46.2
3211. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p54.1
3212. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p9.1
3213. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ix-p4.1
3214. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.5
3215. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.3
3216. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.7
3217. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p12.1
3218. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p43.3
3219. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p43.1
3220. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p43.2
3221. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p10.6
3222. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiii-p5.3
3223. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiii-p5.2
3224. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p31.2
3225. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p14.1
3226. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xi-p12.1
3227. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.1
3228. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.6
3229. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.8
3230. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p10.7
3231. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p18.1
3232. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p34.1
3233. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p9.1
3234. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xv-p11.1
3235. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.1
3236. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p18.1
3237. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.x-p12.1
3238. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p43.6
3239. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p8.1
3240. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p31.1
3241. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p57.2
3242. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p58.1
3243. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p7.3
3244. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.x-p6.2
3245. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p22.4
3246. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p48.12
3247. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p53.4
3248. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p28.1
3249. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p24.2
3250. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p32.1
3251. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p9.2
3252. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p9.1
3253. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p18.1
3254. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p13.4
3255. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p12.3
3256. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p30.4
3257. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p14.3
3258. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p14.5
3259. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p13.3
3260. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p42.1
3261. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p23.5
3262. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p23.6
3263. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p15.1
3264. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p42.2
3265. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p23.3
3266. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p60.1
3267. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p22.1
3268. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p16.4
3269. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p11.1
3270. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p13.1
3271. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p53.1
3272. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p19.1
3273. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p12.1
3274. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p45.2
3275. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p26.2
3276. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p8.4
3277. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p26.5
3278. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.9
3279. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p30.2
3280. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p25.3
3281. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p15.2
3282. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p22.2
3283. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p14.1
3284. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p12.1
3285. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p31.1
3286. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ix-p5.1
3287. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p37.1
3288. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p23.2
3289. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p12.1
3290. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p12.1
3291. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p25.1
3292. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p27.1
3293. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p26.1
3294. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.4
3295. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p10.9
3296. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p21.4
3297. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xii-p6.1
3298. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p13.1
3299. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p8.2
3300. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p8.3
3301. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p15.2
3302. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p10.3
3303. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p28.1
3304. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.4
3305. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.6
3306. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.8
3307. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.9
3308. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p8.1
3309. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p20.4
3310. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p8.1
3311. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p16.2
3312. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p34.2
3313. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p11.5
3314. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p8.1
3315. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.13
3316. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p15.2
3317. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p31.2
3318. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p17.2
3319. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p12.3
3320. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p17.3
3321. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p17.1
3322. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p26.2
3323. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.1
3324. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p15.1
3325. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p22.4
3326. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p22.1
3327. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p52.1
3328. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p50.1
3329. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p28.1
3330. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p17.1
3331. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p16.1
3332. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p19.1
3333. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p36.3
3334. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p9.3
3335. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p9.2
3336. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p25.4
3337. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p15.1
3338. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p25.1
3339. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p15.1
3340. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p9.1
3341. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.i-p7.1
3342. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p23.1
3343. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p48.1
3344. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p28.1
3345. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p22.6
3346. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p29.2
3347. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p17.2
3348. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ii-p17.1
3349. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p16.1
3350. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p41.2
3351. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p42.2
3352. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p17.1
3353. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p51.1
3354. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p19.1
3355. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p31.1
3356. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p78.1
3357. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iii-p4.1
3358. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p23.1
3359. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p10.1
3360. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p15.1
3361. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p26.1
3362. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p28.1
3363. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p28.2
3364. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p16.2
3365. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p12.1
3366. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p26.1
3367. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p20.2
3368. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p24.2
3369. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p12.1
3370. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p26.1
3371. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p43.1
3372. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p18.1
3373. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p21.1
3374. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p32.1
3375. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xix-p17.1
3376. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p14.1
3377. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p17.1
3378. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p30.1
3379. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p48.1
3380. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p12.2
3381. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p11.1
3382. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p15.4
3383. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p12.2
3384. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p9.1
3385. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p9.3
3386. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.6
3387. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p52.1
3388. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p43.1
3389. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vi-p14.2
3390. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p43.1
3391. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p29.1
3392. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p7.1
3393. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p11.1
3394. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p5.1
3395. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vi-p10.1
3396. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p28.1
3397. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p43.1
3398. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p24.1
3399. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p18.2
3400. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p10.1
3401. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p22.2
3402. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p48.1
3403. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p48.11
3404. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p53.3
3405. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p6.1
3406. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p12.1
3407. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p18.1
3408. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p47.1
3409. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p26.3
3410. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p19.3
3411. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p13.1
3412. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p14.1
3413. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p11.1
3414. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p12.1
3415. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p77.1
3416. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p8.1
3417. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p22.1
3418. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p78.1
3419. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p28.1
3420. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p19.1
3421. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p76.1
3422. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.10
3423. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p92.1
3424. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p21.1
3425. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.viii-p17.1
3426. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p37.1
3427. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p27.1
3428. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p79.1
3429. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p12.1
3430. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p11.1
3431. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xix-p13.1
3432. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p10.1
3433. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.1
3434. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p6.1
3435. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p30.1
3436. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p11.1
3437. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p23.1
3438. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.6
3439. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p38.1
3440. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p30.1
3441. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p66.1
3442. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p30.1
3443. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.v-p19.1
3444. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.1
3445. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p6.1
3446. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p18.1
3447. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p34.1
3448. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p23.1
3449. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p17.1
3450. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p5.1
3451. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p16.1
3452. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p7.1
3453. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p51.1
3454. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p17.1
3455. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p19.1
3456. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vi-p14.1
3457. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p68.1
3458. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p16.1
3459. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p8.1
3460. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p22.1
3461. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p29.1
3462. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p13.1
3463. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.v-p12.1
3464. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p35.3
3465. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p23.1
3466. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p16.1
3467. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p18.3
3468. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p8.1
3469. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p31.4
3470. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p11.2
3471. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p18.1
3472. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p11.1
3473. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p37.2
3474. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p11.1
3475. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p57.1
3476. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.v-p20.3
3477. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p24.8
3478. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p22.1
3479. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p56.1
3480. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p30.1
3481. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p25.1
3482. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.viii-p6.1
3483. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxi-p4.1
3484. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p15.3
3485. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p15.1
3486. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p4.1
3487. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p12.1
3488. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p14.1
3489. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p87.1
3490. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xv-p93.1
3491. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p30.2
3492. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p88.1
3493. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p25.1
3494. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.v-p14.1
3495. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.v-p13.1
3496. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.8
3497. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p21.1
3498. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p6.1
3499. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p7.1
3500. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p26.2
3501. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p33.1
3502. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p60.2
3503. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p5.1
3504. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iv-p14.1
3505. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p9.1
3506. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiii-p29.2
3507. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p45.1
3508. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p26.1
3509. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p21.1
3510. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.x-p14.1
3511. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p41.1
3512. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.6
3513. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.1
3514. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p36.1
3515. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p17.1
3516. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p14.1
3517. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p54.1
3518. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p9.2
3519. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p28.1
3520. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p37.1
3521. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xx-p12.1
3522. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p17.1
3523. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p14.1
3524. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p42.1
3525. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p41.1
3526. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.iv-p22.1
3527. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p46.1
3528. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p12.1
3529. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p8.1
3530. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p32.1
3531. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p27.1
3532. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p39.1
3533. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iii-p10.1
3534. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.x-p5.1
3535. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p40.1
3536. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p29.1
3537. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p21.1
3538. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p17.1
3539. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p5.1
3540. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p19.2
3541. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p30.7
3542. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p64.2
3543. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p33.1
3544. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p46.4
3545. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p26.1
3546. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p15.1
3547. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xv-p15.5
3548. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p46.1
3549. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ix-p13.1
3550. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p35.2
3551. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p36.1
3552. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.3
3553. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p29.1
3554. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iv-p5.4
3555. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p25.1
3556. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p32.1
3557. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p69.1
3558. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiii-p25.1
3559. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p10.1
3560. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p24.1
3561. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxviii-p11.1
3562. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p6.1
3563. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p23.1
3564. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p36.2
3565. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p22.1
3566. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p11.1
3567. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p7.1
3568. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p14.2
3569. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p35.1
3570. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p17.2
3571. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p8.1
3572. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p32.3
3573. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p10.1
3574. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p23.1
3575. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p28.1
3576. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p24.4
3577. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p4.1
3578. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxix-p29.1
3579. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p15.2
3580. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p5.2
3581. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxi-p6.1
3582. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p28.1
3583. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xx-p9.1
3584. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iii-p5.2
3585. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xii-p10.1
3586. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p27.1
3587. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p24.1
3588. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vii-p13.1
3589. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p12.1
3590. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p15.1
3591. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p32.1
3592. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p67.6
3593. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxix-p18.2
3594. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxix-p18.1
3595. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p47.1
3596. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p22.5
3597. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p53.2
3598. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p53.5
3599. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.9
3600. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p16.3
3601. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p23.1
3602. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p35.2
3603. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.iii-p4.2
3604. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.viii-p11.2
3605. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p11.1
3606. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiii-p5.1
3607. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p22.5
3608. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p19.1
3609. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.1
3610. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p19.10
3611. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p7.3
3612. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iii-p18.1
3613. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p23.1
3614. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p22.1
3615. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p28.2
3616. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p42.1
3617. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p26.2
3618. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p31.2
3619. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p18.1
3620. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p30.7
3621. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p31.3
3622. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p38.2
3623. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p7.1
3624. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.6
3625. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p25.1
3626. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p29.3
3627. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.8
3628. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiii-p9.1
3629. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p56.1
3630. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.14
3631. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p29.5
3632. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p22.1
3633. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p11.4
3634. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p24.9
3635. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p68.4
3636. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.x-p5.2
3637. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p25.2
3638. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xii-p9.2
3639. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.6
3640. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p12.1
3641. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p25.2
3642. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xv-p19.7
3643. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.3
3644. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p7.5
3645. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.ix-p43.2
3646. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p33.1
3647. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p35.3
3648. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p30.4
3649. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p46.2
3650. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.ii-p13.2
3651. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.2
3652. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p89.1
3653. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p14.2
3654. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p21.2
3655. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p35.2
3656. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p8.2
3657. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p30.2
3658. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p16.5
3659. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p40.2
3660. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p59.2
3661. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p9.4
3662. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p20.2
3663. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p16.3
3664. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p6.1
3665. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p51.1
3666. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p43.2
3667. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p44.1
3668. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p29.2
3669. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p47.2
3670. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p46.1
3671. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p47.1
3672. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p20.1
3673. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p18.6
3674. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p29.1
3675. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.iv-p28.3
3676. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p26.3
3677. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p27.1
3678. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p35.1
3679. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p52.1
3680. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p7.4
3681. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p27.2
3682. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p30.1
3683. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p14.3
3684. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p20.4
3685. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p24.2
3686. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p28.2
3687. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p17.1
3688. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p24.4
3689. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p27.2
3690. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p15.3
3691. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.xiii-p8.2
3692. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p15.2
3693. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p12.2
3694. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p35.2
3695. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p29.2
3696. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxv-p29.3
3697. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p22.2
3698. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p24.3
3699. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p36.2
3700. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p10.2
3701. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.x-p14.1
3702. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p7.1
3703. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.2
3704. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p29.1
3705. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p7.3
3706. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.8
3707. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p29.2
3708. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.14
3709. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p7.1
3710. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p30.3
3711. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p10.1
3712. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p14.1
3713. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p66.2
3714. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p23.3
3715. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p66.3
3716. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.2
3717. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p11.5
3718. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p66.1
3719. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p17.1
3720. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p14.4
3721. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p25.4
3722. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.7
3723. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.4
3724. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.5
3725. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.6
3726. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p66.4
3727. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p6.1
3728. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.3
3729. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.2
3730. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p7.2
3731. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p7.8
3732. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p9.1
3733. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p6.1
3734. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p7.1
3735. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p7.9
3736. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.9
3737. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p7.10
3738. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p10.1
3739. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.7
3740. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p14.1
3741. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p14.3
3742. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p6.2
3743. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.3
3744. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.3
3745. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p8.3
3746. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxvi-p10.1
3747. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiii-p13.1
3748. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p18.4
3749. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p18.2
3750. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.3
3751. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p26.2
3752. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.2
3753. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p23.2
3754. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p14.1
3755. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p7.3
3756. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p7.2
3757. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p20.1
3758. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.6
3759. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p8.3
3760. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.5
3761. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.viii-p15.2
3762. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p19.11
3763. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iv-p15.1
3764. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p13.3
3765. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p21.3
3766. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p19.1
3767. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xi-p26.1
3768. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vii-p10.1
3769. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p22.3
3770. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.4
3771. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p21.1
3772. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p13.1
3773. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p18.3
3774. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiii-p13.3
3775. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiii-p13.2
3776. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p26.1
3777. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xvi-p18.1
3778. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.7
3779. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p8.4
3780. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.ii-p6.5
3781. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.18
3782. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p56.3
3783. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xviii-p6.1
3784. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p47.2
3785. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.x-p5.3
3786. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p47.3
3787. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p19.3
3788. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p12.1
3789. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p30.1
3790. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p19.2
3791. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p19.3
3792. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p24.2
3793. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p24.3
3794. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p7.2
3795. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p9.3
3796. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.x-p6.1
3797. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xvii-p28.1
3798. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p7.2
3799. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p10.1
3800. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.7
3801. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.10
3802. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p23.2
3803. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.6
3804. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.11
3805. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p8.1
3806. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p17.2
3807. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p22.3
3808. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p31.1
3809. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p8.5
3810. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p13.2
3811. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.v.ii-p7.4
3812. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p56.2
3813. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p8.2
3814. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p56.4
3815. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p42.3
3816. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p12.1
3817. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p15.1
3818. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p22.5
3819. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p20.3
3820. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p20.3
3821. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p22.2
3822. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p11.4
3823. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p17.1
3824. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p20.1
3825. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p10.4
3826. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p24.1
3827. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p6.2
3828. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p6.5
3829. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p6.1
3830. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p43.4
3831. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p13.1
3832. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.x-p11.1
3833. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p16.2
3834. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p26.2
3835. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.ix-p22.2
3836. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p21.1
3837. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p31.2
3838. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p27.1
3839. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p13.2
3840. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p17.1
3841. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.ix-p5.2
3842. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p26.1
3843. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.v-p9.2
3844. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p50.3
3845. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p22.1
3846. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p18.4
3847. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.vii-p8.1
3848. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p70.2
3849. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p48.2
3850. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p8.1
3851. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.4
3852. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.3
3853. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.vi-p70.3
3854. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p36.3
3855. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p46.3
3856. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p46.5
3857. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p46.6
3858. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p47.2
3859. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p30.1
3860. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p46.1
3861. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p46.4
3862. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p30.2
3863. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p22.7
3864. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p13.3
3865. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p29.4
3866. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p29.3
3867. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p59.3
3868. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p26.3
3869. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p29.7
3870. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p7.1
3871. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p21.2
3872. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.4
3873. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p28.2
3874. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p20.5
3875. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.vi-p20.3
3876. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p5.1
3877. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p14.2
3878. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.12
3879. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p5.8
3880. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.5
3881. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.16
3882. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.17
3883. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p24.7
3884. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p34.1
3885. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p40.9
3886. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.15
3887. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.12
3888. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p25.2
3889. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p20.19
3890. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p24.1
3891. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.9
3892. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.8
3893. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p24.3
3894. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p26.4
3895. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxx-p19.1
3896. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.15
3897. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p33.4
3898. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.5
3899. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p10.1
3900. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xviii-p15.1
3901. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xviii-p7.1
3902. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p19.1
3903. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p15.2
3904. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxviii-p15.1
3905. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p24.2
3906. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p24.1
3907. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p69.2
3908. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.vi-p12.1
3909. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p24.4
3910. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p16.1
3911. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p25.3
3912. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvii-p24.1
3913. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p37.1
3914. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p12.3
3915. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p35.9
3916. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p5.3
3917. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.2
3918. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p31.1
3919. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.iii-p28.1
3920. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p44.7
3921. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p33.2
3922. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.3
3923. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.15
3924. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.14
3925. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxii-p28.2
3926. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p11.3
3927. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p32.1
3928. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p34.3
3929. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p10.3
3930. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p10.5
3931. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iv-p10.1
3932. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p30.3
3933. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p10.2
3934. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p30.6
3935. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p26.1
3936. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p14.3
3937. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.x-p6.3
3938. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.4
3939. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xii-p18.2
3940. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.5
3941. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xii-p10.1
3942. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiv-p48.1
3943. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p14.4
3944. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iv-p28.1
3945. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p43.2
3946. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p47.2
3947. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiii-p15.1
3948. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxix-p14.1
3949. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.xiv-p6.9
3950. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p5.4
3951. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p47.1
3952. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p35.3
3953. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.iii-p21.2
3954. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.i-p9.3
3955. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p6.7
3956. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p18.2
3957. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.viii-p23.4
3958. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p49.1
3959. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p50.1
3960. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xi-p11.1
3961. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p25.1
3962. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vi.ii-p16.1
3963. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p14.5
3964. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p35.14
3965. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.x-p14.2
3966. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxii-p54.1
3967. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.12
3968. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxi-p26.3
3969. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xiv-p11.2
3970. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.7
3971. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.10
3972. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p20.2
3973. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xix-p7.5
3974. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p23.2
3975. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxiv-p24.2
3976. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxiv-p15.2
3977. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvi-p16.7
3978. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p17.2
3979. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.1
3980. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p14.1
3981. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.v-p14.2
3982. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxv-p25.3
3983. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p16.2
3984. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xx-p16.8
3985. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.5
3986. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p11.2
3987. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p11.3
3988. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xii-p18.2
3989. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.6
3990. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.7
3991. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p8.4
3992. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p9.2
3993. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xii-p9.1
3994. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.5
3995. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.viii-p19.4
3996. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.2
3997. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p8.2
3998. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p27.1
3999. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvii-p12.1
4000. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.8
4001. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.vi-p10.6
4002. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p29.4
4003. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p8.3
4004. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p20.2
4005. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p10.1
4006. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p36.1
4007. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p4.1
4008. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxiv-p36.4
4009. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.ii-p8.2
4010. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p17.9
4011. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p15.1
4012. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.i-p52.2
4013. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p17.2
4014. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliii-p16.1
4015. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p30.3
4016. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p10.1
4017. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxvii-p14.1
4018. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p16.1
4019. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xiv-p18.4
4020. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p17.7
4021. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p17.6
4022. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.v-p19.1
4023. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.i-p17.4
4024. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xix-p25.1
4025. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p16.5
4026. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p16.1
4027. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xi.iv-p22.3
4028. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.viii-p23.1
4029. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p6.4
4030. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.viii.xiii-p6.3
4031. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xx-p13.2
4032. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xliv-p43.2
4033. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xvi-p17.1
4034. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.iv.iii-p34.3
4035. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xv-p21.2
4036. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p22.2
4037. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p29.6
4038. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.5
4039. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.x-p9.2
4040. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xii.xxxv-p16.2
4041. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xi-p32.2
4042. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p16.3
4043. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p10.2
4044. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p22.8
4045. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p22.5
4046. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p22.7
4047. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p12.2
4048. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.2
4049. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p9.3
4050. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.21
4051. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xvi-p12.4
4052. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p27.13
4053. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.xiv-p33.3
4054. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p24.7
4055. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xviii-p64.20
4056. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.i-p12.1
4057. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xix-p13.2
4058. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p22.9
4059. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.3
4060. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.5
4061. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.7
4062. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.6
4063. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.v-p16.4
4064. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.vii.v-p34.1
4065. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.8
4066. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.xx-p34.4
4067. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.xiii.iii-p22.10
4068. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc3/cache/hcc3.html3#iii.x.xxviii-p20.1