(1808-1869) Jesuit, called the Apostle of Philadelphia, born Lunéville, France; died Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He labored in Philadelphia nearly 30 years, founding Saint Joseph's Hospital and establishing sodalities for men, women, and children.

(Latin: happy) Reigned from 269 to 274. Martyr; born Rome, Italy; died there. The records are uncertain as to the events of his reign. Felix sent a letter containing dogmatic exposition of the Catholic doctrine on the subject of the Trinity to the Synod of Antioch which had deposed Paul of Samosata, 269, a follower of Apollinaris, for his heretical teaching on the subject. Feast, May 30,.

Bishop of Orleans, born Saint Felix, Savoie, France, 1802; died Lacombe, IséRevelation 1878. He was an illegitimate child whose mother sought to lessen his disgrace by providing him with an excellent education. As curate at the Madeleine he inaugurated successful catechetical works. On being transferred to Saint Roch, he won a reputation as a pulpit orator, and as director and superior of the preparatory seminary there, where he completely transformed that institution. In 1844 he inaugurated with Montalembert and De Ravignan the long struggle for liberty of education. Canon of Notre Dame in 1848 he was made Bishop of Orleans in the following year and during the 28 years of his episcopate showed remarkable activity. At the Vatican Council he was the leader of the minority which considered the definition of the dogma of infallibility inopportune, but once it was defined he made unreserved submission. He was the author of a number of important works on catechetical and historical subjects.

Catholic philologist. Born 1816; died 1893. Professor of Greek and Latin literature at the University of Louvain for 36 years, and at the same time gave a course of studies in the Sanskrit language and literature. Learned in the Armenian language and literature, and published important translations and commentaries on all these subjects.

Christian apologist, born probably Africa; flourished between 160,300. He is best known by his "Octavius," a dialogue on Christianity, at Ostia, between Caecilius Natalie, a pagan, and Octavius Januarius, a Christian, wherein Caecilius is confounded, Minucius judging the debate. The persons, and possibly the dialogue, are real. The work is strongly imitative, particularly of Cicero, Seneca, and Vergil, and agrees in many respects with the "Apologeticum" of Tertullian.

Confessor, founder of the Order of the Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, born province of Valois, France, 1127; died Cerfroi, 1212. Of the noble family of Valois, he renounced all his possessions at an early age, to live a life of prayer and contemplation in a forest in the Diocese of Meaux. Here he was joined by Saint John of Matha, with whom he founded the Order of Trinitarians for the ransom of Christians held as slaves by the Moors of Spain and Northern Africa. They raised vast sums of money by parading in public as the people threw down to them their gold and precious stones. Saint Felix labored in France, where he established the monastery of Cerfroi and looked after the interests of the congregation. Emblems: slave, flag, and purse. He was buried in the church of Cerfroi and his tomb became the object of frequent pilgrimages. Canonized, 1262. Feast, Roman Calendar, November 20,.

Historian, antiquary, born Auray, Brittany, 1804; died Paris, France, 1886. As a young Jesuit he was forced into exile by the French government and was ordained in Switzerland. In 1842 he was one of those chosen to re-establish his order in Canada, where he remained till failing eyesight forced his return to France in 1862. He designed Saint Patrick's Church, Montreal, and was the founder and architect of Saint Mary's College. He is widely known for his services to Canadian historical literature; he edited the Jesuit Relations (1672-1679) and wrote lives of Champlain, Brebeuf, Chaumonot, Jogues, and Montcalm.

Martyr (3century), born Nola, Italy. Ordained by Bishop Maximus of Nola, he was imprisoned during the persecution of Decius, but was set free by an angel. Refusing the episcopacy of Nola which the citizens urged upon him, he continued his duties as auxiliary; he devoted himself to the poor, among whom he distributed his inheritance. His sufferings have merited the title of martyr. Represented chained in a dungeon. He was buried at Cimitile, near Nola. Feast, Roman Calendar, January 14,.

Martyrs (303), died Milan. According to tradition they were soldiers under Maximian Hercules, martyred for the faith. They are also said to have been companions of Saint Januarius of Mauretania. Saint Ambrose mentions them in his works, and a basilica was built in honor of them at Milan. Feast, Roman Calendar, July 12,.

Martyrs (c.303), died Rome, Italy. Felix was a Roman priest; ordered to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods, he refused, and at his prayer the idols fell shattered to the ground. He was subjected to cruel torments and beheaded. According to the legend, while Felix was being led to his execution, a stranger, inflamed by his heroic example, professed the Faith, and was also martyred. The name of the stranger being unknown, he was called Adauctus (Added). Their basilica over the cemetery of Commodilla was discovered in 1905. Relics in the Cathedral of Vienna. Feast, Roman Calendar, August 30,.

More properly, an antipope from 351 to 358. Born in Rome, Italy; died Porto, Italy, in 365. An archdeacon, he was consecrated by the heretical Acacius of Caesarea, when the legitimate pontiff, Liberius, was banished by the Emperor Constantius, an Arian. He was finally deposed by an order of the Roman Senate and the people. Many historians consider his election uncanonical.

Priest, poet, and dramatist, born Madrid, Spain, 1562; died there, 1635. Educated at the Jesuit college, Madrid, and the University of Alcala, he was in the service of the Bishop of Avila, and became secretary to the Duke of Alva. He served in the Spanish navy, taking part in the Armada expedition. After the death of his second wife, he became a priest, 1612, which action, however, did not correct the disorders of his life. His productivity as an author is astounding. He practised almost all forms of composition with success but is most famed as a dramatist, and as such dominated the Golden Age (16th and 17th centuries), writing at least 1,500 comedias. Naturally these plays are deficient in style, but they display rich dramatic imagination. As typical of his work may be mentioned the pastoral "Pastores de Belen"; the epics "Corona tragica" (dealing with Mary Stuart) and "Angelica"; the historical poem Dragon tea, an attack on Drake; an autobiographical novel "Dorotea"; and the plays "EI Castigo sin Venganza," "La Estrella de Sevilla," and "Amar sin Saber a Quien."

The happy, lies still farther south and east, being bounded east by the Persian Gulf, south by the ocean between Africa and India, and west by the Red Sea. As this region did not immediately adjoin the Holy Land, it is not so frequently mentioned as the former ones. The queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon, 1 Kings 10:1 , was probably queen of part of Arabia Felix. This country abounded with riches, and particularly with spices, and is now called Hedjaz, Yemen, etc. It is much celebrated in modern times by reason of the cities of Mecca and Medina being situated in it. There are, according to native historians, two races of Arabs: those who derive their descent from the primitive inhabitants of the land, Joktan, etc., and those who claim Ishmael as their ancestor. Southern Arabia was settled in part by Cush and his sons, descendants of Ham, who also peopled the adjoining coast of Africa, and in part by descendants of Shem, particularly Joktan, Genesis 10:25,26 . Ishmael, Genesis 25:13-15 , and the six sons of Abraham by Keturah, Genesis 25:2 , together with the seed of Esau and of Lot, occupied the parts of Arabia nearer Judea. The changes of forty centuries render it impossible to distinguish either of these parent sources in the numerous Arab tribes descended from them. These tribes have traditions and peculiarities of their own, and incessant feuds; yet as a whole they are but one people, distinct from all others. The only general division is into those who dwell in cities, as in Southern Arabia, and those who live in the fields and deserts. The latter are migratory, dwelling in tents and removing according to the convenience of water and pasturage, and are often robbers. Each tribe is divided up into little communities, of which a sheik or patriarch is the head. Such are the Bedaween. In ancient times the Arabs were idolaters and star-worshippers. They are now nominally Mohammedans, but then religion sits but lightly on them. Isolated from other nations, and with slight exceptions free from all foreign control the preserve their ancient manners with singular fidelity, and the study of these throws much light upon Bible narratives. Their language also is still spoken with great purity; and as it is near akin to the Hebrew, it furnishes invaluable aid in the study of the Old Testament.

(1851-1926) Archbishop of Vilna, born Dabrowa, Poland; died Passaic, New Jersey. A teacher of theology in the Academy of Petrograd, he was made bishop, 1908; archbishop, 1919. As successor of Archbishop Ropp of Petrograd, who had been exiled by the Bolsheviks, Cieplak was summoned several times by the Soviet Department of Religious Affairs for refusing to carry out the following decrees: 1. To sign an agreement acknowledging government ownership of Church property and prohibiting religious instruction. 2. To order the clergy not to resist the confiscation of Church treasures. In 1923, Cieplak and Monsignor Budkiewicz were seized and taken to Moscow for trial, with 13 other priests, charged with inciting Catholics to a counter-revolution. After a farcical trial, Budkiewicz and he were condemned to death but, in deference to universal public protests, the sentence of the archbishop was commuted to imprisonment. After spending 13 months in the Bolshevik prisons, Cieplak retired to Rome. In 1926 while visiting the Polish centers of the United States he died.

Confessor, born near Cantalice, Italy, 1513; died Rome, Italy, 1587. He entered the Capuchin Order, 1543, and for 40 years exercised a wonderful influence among all classes. He worked chiefly among children, whom he taught to sing the canticles which he composed. Though illiterate, he was so advanced in the spiritual life that Saint Philip Neri selected him to assist Saint Charles Borromeo in drawing up the constitutions for his Oblates. In his humility and simplicity, Felix styled himself the "Ass of the Capuchins." Represented holding the Infant Jesus in his arms. Canonized, 1712. Relics in the Capuchin church of the Immaculate Conception, Rome. Feast, May 18,.

Happy, the Roman procurator of Judea before whom Paul "reasoned" (Acts 24:25 ). He appears to have expected a bribe from Paul, and therefore had several interviews with him. The "worthy deeds" referred to in 24:2 was his clearing the country of banditti and impostors. At the end of a two years' term, Porcius Festus was appointed in the room of Felix (A.D. 60), who proceeded to Rome, and was there accused of cruelty and malversation of office by the Jews of Caesarea. The accusation was rendered nugatory by the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero. (See Josephus, Ant. xx. 8,9.) Drusilla, the daughter of Herod Agrippa, having been induced by Felix to desert her husband, the king of Emesa, became his adulterous companion. She was seated beside him when Paul "reasoned" before the judge. When Felix gave place to Festus, being "willing to do the Jews a pleasure," he left Paul bound.

(fee' lihx) The procurator of Judea at the time Paul the apostle visited Jerusalem for the last time and was arrested there (Acts 23:24 ). Antonius Felix became procurator of Judea in A.D. 52, succeeding Cumanus. He remained in office until A.D. 60, when the emperor Nero recalled him. He is depicted in Acts as a man who listened with interest to Paul's defense but failed to make any decision with regard to the case or with regard to the personal implications of Paul's message. Rather he hoped Paul would pay him a bribe (Acts 24:26 ). Contemporary historians Tacitus and Josephus paint Felix as a brutal, incompetent politician who was finally replaced. Compare Acts 24:27 . See Paul ; Roman Empire

Hymn for Lauds on June 24, Feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist. It was written by Paul the Deacon (720-799). The English title given is by M. Blacker and G. Palmer.

Hymn for Lauds on the Feast of the Holy Family, first Sunday after Epiphany. Pope Leo III wrote it. Of the three translations, the title given above is by Monsignor Henry.

Martyr (3century), born Nola, Italy. Ordained by Bishop Maximus of Nola, he was imprisoned during the persecution of Decius, but was set free by an angel. Refusing the episcopacy of Nola which the citizens urged upon him, he continued his duties as auxiliary; he devoted himself to the poor, among whom he distributed his inheritance. His sufferings have merited the title of martyr. Represented chained in a dungeon. He was buried at Cimitile, near Nola. Feast, Roman Calendar, January 14,.

Priest, poet, and dramatist, born Madrid, Spain, 1562; died there, 1635. Educated at the Jesuit college, Madrid, and the University of Alcala, he was in the service of the Bishop of Avila, and became secretary to the Duke of Alva. He served in the Spanish navy, taking part in the Armada expedition. After the death of his second wife, he became a priest, 1612, which action, however, did not correct the disorders of his life. His productivity as an author is astounding. He practised almost all forms of composition with success but is most famed as a dramatist, and as such dominated the Golden Age (16th and 17th centuries), writing at least 1,500 comedias. Naturally these plays are deficient in style, but they display rich dramatic imagination. As typical of his work may be mentioned the pastoral "Pastores de Belen"; the epics "Corona tragica" (dealing with Mary Stuart) and "Angelica"; the historical poem Dragon tea, an attack on Drake; an autobiographical novel "Dorotea"; and the plays "EI Castigo sin Venganza," "La Estrella de Sevilla," and "Amar sin Saber a Quien."

FELIX, ANTONIUS . Procurator of Judæa ( Acts 23:24 ff.); according to Josephus, he had been sent to succeed Cumanus in a.d. 52; but this contradicts Tacitus, who makes Cumanus governor of Galilee and Felix of Samaria simultaneously; and this suits Acts 24:10 (‘many years’). Both historians give 52 as the year of Cumanus’ disgrace, so that we may probably take that as the date of Felix’ accession to office in Judæa. Felix was brother of Pallas, Claudius’ powerful freedman, whose influence continued him in office under Nero, and on his disgrace (due to a riot at Cæsarea) procured him his life. He is described by Tacitus as a very bad and cruel governor. He was somewhat touched by St. Paul’s preaching ( Acts 24:25 f.), but kept him in prison, first in hope of a bribe, one of many details showing that St. Paul was a prisoner of social importance, and, finally, to please the Jews. He is called ‘most excellent’ ( Acts 23:26 , Acts 24:3 ; cf. Acts 26:25 , Luke 1:3 ), a title given him as governor, but more properly confined to those of equestrian rank. He married thrice, each time to a person of royal birth; see Drusilla. A. I. Maclean.

(1778-1820) First superior of the Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians) in the United States, born Demonte, Italy; died Saint Louis, Missouri. He accompanied Bishop Dubourg to Saint Louis, 1818, where the congregation had its first establishment, and died soon after exhausted by missionary labors. The process for his beatification was authorized by Benedict XV, 1918.

One of the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius, and by him appointed to be procurator or governor of Judaea, A.D. 51. Paul, when sent a prisoner to Caesarea, appeared before Felix; and again before him and his wife Drusilla; and as Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance and judgement to come, Felix trembled, and said when he had a convenient season he would send for him. He showed his mercenary and unrighteous character in keeping Paul a prisoner two years in the hope of being bribed; and then leaving him a prisoner to please the Jews. Acts 23:24,26 ; Acts 24:3-27 ; Acts 25:14 . Tacitus says Felix ruled the province in a mean, cruel, and profligate manner. The country was full of sedition, among which Josephus speaks of 'false messiahs' being put down. Eventually he was accused before Nero by the Jews, and only escaped punishment by the intercession of his brother Pallas. He was superseded by Porcius Festus, A.D. 60.

Antonius (Tacitus, Hist. 5:9) Claudius (Suidas), Roman procurator of Judaea, appointed by the emperor Claudius, whose freedman he was, to succeed Ventidius Cumanus, who was banished A.D. 53. Tacitus (Ann., 12:54) makes F. procurator of Samaria while Cumanus had Galilee. Josephus (Ant. 20:6, section 2, 7, section 1) makes him succeed Cumanus. Tacitus writes of Felix, "he exercised the authority of a king with the disposition of a slave in all cruelty and lust." He and Cumanus were tried before Quadratus for winking at robbery and violence and enriching themselves with bribes, according to Tacitus, and Felix was acquitted and reinstated. Having the powerful support of his brother Pallas, Claudius' freedman and favorite, he thought he could do what he liked with impunity. Pallas' influence continuing, Felix remained procurator under Nero. Felix crushed the Jewish zealots under the name of "robbers," and crucified hundreds. He put down false Messiahs and the followers of an Egyptian magician (Josephus, Ant. 20:8, section 5, 6; Acts 21:88) and riots, but he once employed the zealot assassins (Sicarii) to murder the high priest Jonathan. "By unseasonable remedies he only aggravated" the evils of Judaea (Tacitus, Annals 12:54). These were the "very worthy deeds done by Felix's providence," which gave the nation "great quietness" according to the lying flatterer Tertullus' set oration against Paul (Acts 24:2, etc.). Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, sent Paul for judgment to Felix at Caesarea. There Paul had two hearings before Felix. After the first hearing, Felix deferred the Jews until Lysias the chief captain should come. At the second Paul, before Felix and Drusilla, Felix's Jewish wife, who was curious to "hear him concerning the faith of Christ," so reasoned of "righteousness and temperance (both of which Felix outraged as a governor and a man, having seduced from her husband) and judgment to come" that Felix "trembled" before his prisoner, but deferred repentance, saying, "when I have a convenient season I will call for thee." (See DRUSILLA.) Greed of gain supplanted conscience, so that instead of repenting of his shameful life he would not even do common justice to Paul, but left him a prisoner because he got no bribe to set him free. Felix could hardly have hoped for money from so poor looking a prisoner as Paul (which is implied in Lysias' surprise, presuming Paul had like himself bought Roman citizenship, Acts 22:27-28), had he not heard Paul stating in the former interview, "after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings." This accounts for Felix "letting Paul have liberty and forbidding none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him." He doubtless hoped they would supply the money wherewith to buy his deliverance, an undesigned coincidence and so a mark of the truth of the history. After two years Porcius Festus succeeded, and Felix was accused by the Jews of Caesarea, at Rome, but escaped through Pallas' influence with the emperor Nero, A.D. 60.

Felix (1) I. , bp. of Rome, probably from Jan. 5, 269, to Dec. 30, 274, in the reigns of Claudius and Aurelian. The Liberian Catalogue (354) names the consuls of the years above mentioned as those contemporary with his accession and death, and gives 5 years, 11 months, and 25 days as the duration of his episcopate; while the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum gives Dec. 30 as the date of his death. Later and less trustworthy authorities, including the Liber Pontificalis, differ as to the date and duration of his episcopate. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and martyr, his day being May 30. His martyrdom is asserted, not only in the later editions of the Liber Pontificalis, but also in the early recension of 530, known as the Felician Catalogue. Notwithstanding this testimony, his martyrdom seems inconsistent with the silence of the Liberian Catalogue, and with his name appearing in the Depositio Episcoporum, not the Depositio Martyrum of the same date. Nothing is known with certainty of his acts, except the part he took in the deposition of Paul of Samosata from the see of Antioch. A synod at Antioch (a.d. 290) having deposed this heretical bishop and appointed Domnus in his place, announced these facts in letters addressed to Maximus and Dionysius, bps. of Alexandria and Rome, and to other Catholic bishops. Felix, who had in the meantime succeeded Dionysius, addressed a letter on the subject to Maximus and to the clergy of Antioch, fragments of which are preserved in the Apologeticus of Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the council of Ephesus, and which is also alluded to by Marius Mercator, and by Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium ; cf. Harnack, Gesch. der alt. Ch. Lit. i. 659. Three decretals, undoubtedly spurious, are assigned to him (Harduin, Concil. ). ^[1]

Felix (174) , bp. of Tubzoca (perhaps Thibaris in Numidia). His story illustrates the first edict of persecution issued by Diocletian in Feb. 303, and the special severity with which it was worked in the West under the emperor Maximian. This edict did not authorize death as a punishment, but simply prohibited the assembly of Christians for religious worship; ordered the destruction of churches and sacred documents, and authorized torture. Official notice of its publication arrived at Tubzoca on June 5, and the overseer of the city, Magnellianus, summoned first the clergy and then the bishop, and demanded the sacred writings. Felix replied, "It is better that I should be burned rather than the Holy Scriptures, since it is better to obey God rather than man." Three days were given him for reconsideration, during which time he was committed to the private custody of Vincentius Celsinus, a leading citizen. Upon his continued refusal he was sent to the proconsul Anulinus at Carthage, June 24. By him the bishop was twice examined. With the edict there seems to have been sent by Maximian the praetorian prefect or commander of the emperor's guard, to secure its due execution. To him, upon his final refusal, Felix and his companions were delivered for transporation into Italy, arriving after four days' sail in Sicily. At Agrigentum, Catana, Messana, and Taurominium they were received with great honour by the Christians. Thence they were carried by the prefect to Venusia, in Apulia, where, having again called upon Felix to surrender the sacred writings, he condemned him to death for disobedience. Felix suffered by beheading, Aug. 30, on which day he is commemorated by Bede. There is considerable confusion as to details in different versions of the Acts, which d’Achery and Baluze have in vain endeavoured to remedy. Martyr. Vet. Roman. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi; Baronius, Annal. a.d. 302, cxvii.-cxxiii.; Ruinart, Acta Sincera ; Surius; d’Acherii Spicileg. t. xii. 634; Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p. 77; Tillem. v. 202. ^[1]

Felix (186) of Nola. ^[1]

Felix (2) II. , bp. of Rome after the exile of pope Liberius (a.d. 355). He has a place in the Roman calendar as a saint and martyr, and in the Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and St. Eusebius as a legitimately elected and orthodox pope, persecuted by the emperor and the Arian faction. Contemporary and other ancient writers (Faustus and Marcellinus, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Rufinus, Sozomen, and Theodoret) unanimously represent him, on the contrary, as an interloper placed in the see violently and irregularly by the emperor and the Arians, and do not allude to his martyrdom. The following is the account given by Marcellinus and Faustus, two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of Rome, who must have had good opportunity of knowing the truth. It occurs in the preface to their Libellus Precum addressed to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius during the pontificate of Damasus, who succeeded Liberius, and by whom the writers complain of being persecuted. Immediately on the banishment of Liberius all the clergy, including the archdeacon Felix, swore to accept no other bishop during the life of the exiled pope. Notwithstanding, the clergy afterwards ordained this Felix, though the people were displeased and abstained from taking part. Damasus, pope after Liberius, was among his perjured supporters. In 357 the emperor visited Rome, and, being solicited by the people for the return of Liberius, consented on condition of his complying with the imperial requirements, but with the intention of his ruling the church jointly with Felix. In the third year Liberius returned, and the people met him with joy. Felix was driven from the city, but soon after, at the instigation of the clergy who had perjured themselves in his election, burst into it again, taking his position in the basilica of Julius beyond the Tiber. The faithful and the nobles again expelled him with great ignominy. After 8 years, during the consulship of Valentinianus and Valens ( i.e. a.d. 365), on the 10th of the Calends of Dec. (Nov. 22), Felix died, leaving Liberius without a rival as bp. of Rome till his own death on the 8th of the Calends of Oct. (Sept. 24), 366. The other writers mentioned tell us that the election and consecration of Felix took place in the imperial palace, since the people debarred the Arians from their churches; that three of the emperor's eunuchs represented the people, the consecrators being three heretical bishops, Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, and Basil of Ancyra; and it was only the Arian section of the clergy, though apparently a large one, that supported Felix. A very different account is given in the Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and of St. Eusebius; the former account is undoubtedly to be preferred. But though Felix, as well as Liberius, has obtained a place in the list of lawful popes, and has even been canonized, it is thus evident that his claim is more than doubtful. Accordingly, Augustine, Optatus, and Eutychius (as did Athanasius, Jerome, and Rufinus) exclude him from their lists of popes. In the Roman church, however, his claim to the position appears to have remained unquestioned till the 14th cent., when, an emendation of the Roman Martyrology having been undertaken in 1582, under pope Gregory XIII., the question was raised and discussed. Baronius at first opposed the claims of Felix; a cardinal, Sanctorius, defended them. The question was decided by the accidental discovery, in the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the forum, of a coffin bearing the inscription, "Corpus S. Felicis papae et martyris, qui damnavit Constantium." In the face of this, Baronius was convinced, and retracted all he had written (Baron. ad Liberium , c. lxii.). Accordingly Felix retained his place in the Martyrology, though the title of pope was afterwards expunged from the oratio for his day in the breviary. What became of the inscribed slab is not known, and in the absence of any knowledge of its date, its testimony is valueless. ^[1]

Felix (212). ^[1]

Felix (26) I. , bp. of Aptunga, in proconsular Africa. Felix was one of those who laid hands on Caecilian as bp. of Carthage, if not the sole officiating bishop, a.d. 311 (Aug. Brevie. Coll. iii. 14, 26; 16, 29). The Donatist party, having failed in the Court of Inquiry at Rome, under Melchiades, Oct. 2, 313, to establish their case against Caecilian, turned their attack on Felix, whom they sought to convict of the infamous crime of "tradition" in the persecution of Maximus, a.d. 303. The emperor gave orders to Aelianus, the proconsul of Africa, to hold an inquiry on the spot, which took place on Feb. 15, 314 (Aug. Post. Coll. 38, 56; Ep. 43, 3-14; 88; c. Cresc. iii. 61) at Carthage, in the presence of many who had held municipal offices at the time of the persecution. In vain the prosecution relied on a chain of fraudulent evidence elaborately concocted. The proconsul pronounced the complete acquittal of Felix, which was confirmed by the emperor, and repeated in a letter to Verinus, or Valerius, the vicar of Africa, a.d. 321. The whole case was brought up again at Carth. Conf., a.d. 411, when Augustine argued that there was no doubt of the completeness of the imperial decision. Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 81, iv. 79; de Unic. Bapt. 28; Brev. Coll. 41, 42; Post. Coll. 56; Mon. Vet. Don. iii. pp. 160-167 and 341-343, ed. Oberthür; Bruns. Concil. i. 108 ; Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. 92. ^[1]

Felix (3) III. , (otherwise II.), bp. of Rome from Mar 483 to Feb. 492. The clergy having met in St. Peter's church to elect a successor to Simplicius, Basilius (Praefectus Praetorio and Patrician) interposed in the name of his master Odoacer the Herulian, who since 476 had ruled the West as king of Italy, alleging, as a fact known to his hearers, that Simplicius before his death had conjured the king to allow no election of a successor without his consent; and this to avoid the turmoil and detriment to the church that was likely to ensue. Basilius expressing surprise that the clergy, knowing this, had taken independent action, proceeded in the king's name to propound a law prohibiting the pope then to be elected and all future popes from alienating any farms or other church possessions; declaring invalid the titles of any who might thus receive ecclesiastical property; requiring the restitution of alienated farms with their proceeds, or the sale for religious uses of gold, silver, jewels, and clothes unfitted for church purposes; and subjecting all donors and recipients of church property to anathema. The assembled clergy seem to have assented to this, and to have been then allowed to proceed with their election, their choice falling on Caelius Felix, the son of a presbyter also called Felix. The Roman synod under pope Symmachus (498-514) protested against this interference of laymen with the election of a pope, and Symmachus consented to declare it void, but required the re-enaction of the law against the alienation of farms, etc. The pontificate of this Felix was chiefly remarkable for the commencement of the schism of 35 years between Rome and the Eastern patriarchates. In 451 the council of Chalcedon had condemned the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy, adopting the definition of faith contained in the famous letter of pope Leo I. to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople. The council had also enacted canons of discipline, the 9th and the 17th giving to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople the final determination of causes against metropolitans in the East; and the 28th assigning to the most holy throne of Constantinople, or new Rome, equal privileges with the elder Rome in ecclesiastical matters, as being the second after her, with the right of ordaining metropolitans in the Pontic and Asian and Thracian dioceses, and bishops among the barbarians therein. This last canon the legates of pope Leo had protested against at the council, and Leo himself had afterwards repudiated it, as contrary (so he expressed himself) to the Nicene canons, and an undue usurpation on the part of Constantinople. In connexion with the heresy condemned by the council of Chalcedon and with the privileges assigned by its canons to Constantinople, the schism between the East and West ensued during the pontificate of Felix. The condemnation of Monophysitism at Chalcedon by no means silenced its abettors, who in the church of Alexandria were especially strong and resolute. They supported Peter Mongus as patriarch; the orthodox supporting first Timotheus Solofacialus, and on his death John Talaia. ^[1] Felix, in a synod at Rome, renewed his predecessor's excommunication of Peter Mongus, addressed letters to the emperor Zeno and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople. Acacius is urged to renounce Peter Mongus, and induce the emperor to do the same. Felix sent also a formal summons for Acacius to appear at Rome and answer the charge of having disregarded the injunctions of Simplicius. The letter to Zeno implored the emperor to refrain from rending the seamless garment of Christ, and to renew his support of the one faith which had raised him to the imperial dignity, the faith of the Roman church, against which the Lord had said that the gates of hell should not prevail; but both the emperor and Acacius continued to support Peter. The papal legates having returned to Rome, Felix convened a synod of 67 Italian bishops, in which he renewed the excommunication of Peter Mongus, and published an irrevocable sentence of deposition and excommunication against Acacius himself. The sentence of excommunication was served on Acacius by one of those zealous champions of Felix, the Sleepless Monks ("Acoemetae"), who fastened it to the robe of the patriarch when about to officiate in church. The patriarch discovered it, but proceeded with the service, and then, in a calm, clear voice, ordered the name of Felix, bp. of Rome, to be erased from the diptychs of the church. This was on Aug. 1, 484. Thus the two chief bishops of Christendom stood mutually excommunicated, and the first great schism between the East and West began. The emperor and the great majority of the prelates of the East supported Acacius; and thus the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as Constantinople, remained out of communion with Rome. Another noted Monophysite, called Peter Fullo (i.e. the Fuller), had excited the orthodox zeal of Felix, patriarch of Antioch. He had added to the Tersanctus the clause, "Who wast crucified for us," and was charged with thus attributing passibility to the Godhead. To him, therefore, from a Roman synod, Felix addressed a synodical letter in which, in the name of Peter, the chief of the apostles and the head of all sees, he pronounced his deposition and excommunication. In 489 Acacius died, and was succeeded by Flavitas, or Fravitas. Felix, on hearing of the vacancy of the see, wrote to Thalasius, an archimandrite of Constantinople, warning him and his monks (who appear throughout to have espoused the cause of Rome) to communicate with no successor till Rome had been fully apprised of all proceedings and had declared the church of Constantinople restored to its communion. Flavitas having died within four months after his accession, the popes' letter to him was received by his successor Euphemius. Felix, though satisfied as to the faith of Euphemius, insisted on the erasure of the name of Acacius, which condition being demurred to, the breach continued. After his rupture with the East, Felix helped to reconstitute the African church, which had cruelly suffered at the hands of the Arian Vandals. This persecution, which had raged under king Hunneric, who died in 484, ceased under his successor Gundamund, when a number of apostates sought readmission to catholic communion. A synod of 38 bishops held at Rome under Felix in 488 issued a synodical letter dated Mark 15, laying down terms of readmission. Felix died Feb. 24, 492. His extant works are 15 letters (Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii. 893 ff.). Gratian gives also a decretum as his, to the effect that the royal will should yield to priests in ecclesiastical causes. The ancient authorities for his Life are his letters and those of his successor Gelasius, the Breviarium of Liberatus Diaconus, and the Histories of Evagrius and Nicephorus Callistus. ^[2]

Felix (4) IV. (otherwise III.; see Felix II.), bp. of Rome (July 526—Oct. 530) during 4 years, 2 months, and 14 or 18 days (Anastas. Biblioth. ). The same authority states that he built the basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian, restored that of the martyr St. Saturninus, and was buried, on Oct. 12, in the basilica of St. Peter. There is little to be told of him, except the circumstances of his appointment. His predecessor, John I., had died in prison at Ravenna, into which he had been thrown by Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who then ruled the West as king of Italy. Theodoric took the unprecedented step of appointing his successor on his own authority, without waiting for the customary election by clergy and people. This high-handed proceeding seems to have been at length acquiesced in. No subsequent king or emperor laid claim to a like power of interference in the appointment of popes, though the confirmation of elections by the civil power was insisted on, and continued till the election of Zachary in 752, when the confirmation of the exarch of Ravenna, as representing the Eastern emperor, was first dispensed with under the Carlovingian empire. The same freedom of election by clergy and people continued to be the theory till the appointment was given to the College of Cardinals during the pontificate of Nicholas II., a.d. 1059. For previous interventions of the civil power see Bonifacius II., Eulalius (1), Felix III., Symmachus, Laurentius (10). The only further event known as marking the pontificate of Felix is the issue of an edict by Athalaric, the successor of Theodoric, requiring all civil suits against ecclesiastics to be preferred before the bishop and not the secular judge. The edict was called forth by Felix, with the Roman clergy, having complained to the king that the Goths had invaded the rights of churches and dragged the clergy before lay tribunals. It extended only to the Roman clergy, "in honour of the Apostolic see" (Cassiodor. lib 8, c. 24). Justinian I. afterwards extended it, though with an appeal to the civil tribunal, to all ecclesiastics (Justin. Novel. 83, 123). For this pope's letter, esp. letter to Caesarius of Arles, requiring probation from candidates for the priesthood before their ordination, see Migne, Patr. Lat. lxv. An important decretum of this pope was made known by Amelli in 1882, and edited by Mommsen in Neuer Archiv fur älter deutsch. Gesch. Kunde, 1886. See Duchesne, La Succession du pape Félix IV. (Rome, 1883). ^[1]

(Acts 23:24 ff.) A freedman, and a brother of Pallas, Felix was the favourite of the Emperor Claudius. Tacitus (Hist. Acts 23:9) calls him ‘Antonius Felix.’ Of his public life prior to his appointment to his procuratorship in Palestine, nothing is known; of his private life, only that he had married a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, whom Tacitus (loc. cit.) calls Drusilla, confusing her, no doubt, with the Jewish princess with whom Felix allied himself later. Suetonius knows of yet another marriage-also to a princess (Claud. 28). Josephus and Tacitus are at variance as to the time and circumstance of the sending of Felix to Palestine. According to Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ii. 12; Ant. xx. 6f.), Fells was appointed to succeed the procurator Cumanus, when the latter was condemned and banished for his misrule. According to Tacitus (Ann, xii. 54), Cumanus and Felix were contemporaneously procurators, the one of Galilee, the other of Samaria. It seems reasonable to follow Schürer (History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] I. ii. ^[1] 174) in giving preference in this matter to ‘the very detailed narrative of Josephus.’ This fixes the arrival of Felix in Palestine in a.d. 52, or early in the following year. The historians are entirely at one in their estimate of Felix and of the manner in which he exercised his functions. His countryman Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) describes him as using ‘the powers of a king with the disposition of a slave,’ and says (Ann, xii. 54) ‘he deemed that he might perpetrate any ill deeds with impunity.’ Under his government the state of Palestine grew rapidly worse. If there had been occasional disorders under Cumanus, ‘under Felix rebellion became permanent.’ The boundless cruelty with which he repressed the more open opposition of the ‘Zealots’ to the Roman rule stimulated the formation of the secret associations of the ‘Assassins’ (Sicarii), whose hand was against all-Jew not less than Roman-who did not further their designs. Not less significant of the misery of the people was their readiness to answer the call of religious fanatics like ‘the Egyptian’ mentioned in Acts 21:38, whom Josephus (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. xiii. 5) credits with a following of thirty thousand. In any such movement Felix suspected ‘the beginning of a revolt,’ and adopted measures which only served to increase the popular disaffection. For the intrigue by which he possessed himself of the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa I.-the newly wedded wife of King Azizus of Emesa-see article Drusilla. The cynical disregard of Felix for justice, and his inordinate greed are alike brought to view in his treatment of the Apostle Paul. Although possessed of information Concerning the Way,’ which would have justified him in releasing the prisoner when he was first brought before him, he decided to adjourn the case in definitely (Acts 24:22), partly to curry favour with the Jews, and partly to serve his own rapacious ends. The interview with the Apostle recorded in Acts 24:24 was probably intended by the procurator and his wife to be somewhat of a diversion-it ended for Felix in terror. He had frequent communing with St. Paul during the time he detained him as his prisoner at Caesarea; but seemingly on these later occasions Felix kept control of the conversation and directed it, though unavailingly, towards his mercenary aim. Two years after St. Paul was brought to Caesarea, Felix was recalled to Rome in connexion with a strife which had broken out at Caesarea between the Jews and the Syrians in that town-the Jews asserting for themselves certain exclusive rights, which the others denied. The matter was referred to the Emperor. The investigation proved so damaging to Felix that ‘he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas’ (Jos. Ant. xx. viii. 9). Of the subsequent life of Felix, nothing is known. Literature.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Apostles as traced by St. Luke, 1905, pt. ii. p. 243; A. Maclaren, Expositions: ‘Acts, ch. xiii.-end,’1907, pp. 281, 287: G. H. Morrison, The Footsteps of the Flock, 1904, p. 362; M. Jones, St. Paul the Orator, 1910, p. 202; J. S. Howson, The Companions of St. Paul, 1874, p. 145: H. Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 2nd ser. 3, 1861, p. 179; W, H. M. H. Aitken, The Glory of the Gospel, n.d., pp. 193, 208, 223; C. H. Turner, ‘Eusebius’ Chronology of Felix and Festus’ in Journal of Theological Studies , iii. ^[2] 120; S. Buss, Roman Law and History in the NT, 1901, p. 373. G. P. Gould.

Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix , bp. of Pavia, born at Arles (Ennod. Ep. lib. vii. 8) c. 473; connected with Romans of distinction ( ib. iv. i 25). The invasion of the Visigoths, and the consequent loss of his patrimony, caused him to migrate at an early age to Milan, where he was educated in the house of an aunt. In 489, the year in which Theodoric invaded Italy, his aunt died, and he was saved from beggary by marriage ( Eucharist. de Vit. ). A dangerous sickness (Ep. viii. 24) led him to serious thought and suggested the composition of his Eucharisticon, in which he reviews with penitence his past life. He was subsequently ordained deacon by Epiphanius bp. of Pavia, whose exhortations determined him to renounce his marriage, with the consent of his wife, who retired into a convent. In 494 he accompanied Epiphanius (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan. 234 A) on a mission to Gundebaud, king of the Burgundians, to procure the ransom of certain Ligurian prisoners. Upon the death of Epiphanius two years later he visited Rome, and gained reputation by composing an apology for pope Symmachus and the synod which acquitted him, as well as by a public panegyric in honour of Theodoric. The former of these was inserted in the Acta Conciliorum ; the latter is generally included in collections of the Panegyrici Veteres. Under the next pope, Hormisdas, he succeeded Maximus II. in the see of Pavia, and was sent in 515, and again in 517, on an embassy to the emperor Anastasius to oppose the spread of the Eutychian heresy. Both embassies were unsuccessful. Anastasius, failing to corrupt or bend the bishop, had him placed on board an unseaworthy vessel. Ennodius, however, arrived safely in his diocese, which he continued to administer for four years. He died at the age of 48, and was buried in the church of St. Michael at Pavia, July 17, 521. His writings exemplify throughout a profane tendency of thought and expression which Christian writers in Gaul were slow to abandon. Many of his letters suit the pen of a heathen rhetorician rather than of a Christian bishop. His illustrations are commonly drawn from Greek mythology. He speaks of divine grace as descending "de Superis," and sets the Fates side by side with Jesus Christ. His style is turgid, involved, and affected. He seems to shrink from making himself intelligible lest he should be thought commonplace, and the result is unattractive. His works are reprinted with notes in Migne's Patr. vol. lxiii. For his Life see Sirmond's ed.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr. et ecclés. x. 569; for a just estimate of his literary merits, Ampère, Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. vii. ^[1]

CLAUDIUS. See CLAUDIUS .

Felix (fç'lix), happy. A Roman procurator of Judea appointed by the emperor Claudius in a.d. 53. His period of office was full of troubles and seditions. Paul was brought before Felix in Cæsarea. Paul was remanded to prison, and kept there two years in hopes of extorting money from him. Acts 24:26-27. At the end of that time Porcius Festus superseded Felix, who, on his return to Rome, was accused by the Jews in Cæsarea, and would have suffered for his crimes had not his brother Pallas prevailed with the emperor Nero to spare him. This was probably about a.d. 60. The wife of Felix was Drusilla, a daughter of Herod Agrippa I., who was his third wife and whom he persuaded to leave her husband and marry him.

A Roman governor of Judea; originally a slave, but manumitted and promoted by Claudius Caesar, from whom he received the name of Claudius. He is described by the historian Tacitus as cruel, licentious, and base. In Judea he married Drusilla, sister of the younger Agrippa, having enticed her from her second husband Azizus. Paul having been sent by Lysias to Caesarea, then the seat of government, Felix gave him an audience, and was convinced of his innocence. Nevertheless he kept him a prisoner, though with many alleviation's, in hopes that his friends would purchase his liberty by a heavy bribe. Meanwhile his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, desired to hear Paul explain the new religion; and the apostle being summoned before them, discoursed with his usual boldness on justice, chastity, and the final judgment. Felix trembled, but hastily remanded Paul to confinement, and stifled his convictions-a melancholy instance of the power of lust and the danger of delay. Two years after, A. D. 60, he was recalled to Rome; and left Paul in prison, in order to appease the Jews. He was brought to trial, however, for maladministration, found guilty, and barely escaped death through the intercession of his brother Pallas, another royal favorite, Acts 23:26 ; 24:1-27 .

Confessor, founder of the Order of the Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives, born province of Valois, France, 1127; died Cerfroi, 1212. Of the noble family of Valois, he renounced all his possessions at an early age, to live a life of prayer and contemplation in a forest in the Diocese of Meaux. Here he was joined by Saint John of Matha, with whom he founded the Order of Trinitarians for the ransom of Christians held as slaves by the Moors of Spain and Northern Africa. They raised vast sums of money by parading in public as the people threw down to them their gold and precious stones. Saint Felix labored in France, where he established the monastery of Cerfroi and looked after the interests of the congregation. Emblems: slave, flag, and purse. He was buried in the church of Cerfroi and his tomb became the object of frequent pilgrimages. Canonized, 1262. Feast, Roman Calendar, November 20,.

See FELIX .

As Roman governor of Judea from AD 52 to 60, Felix had some influence on Jewish affairs in Palestine. Early non-biblical records show that he was corrupt and cruel, characteristics that are well illustrated in the story about him in the Bible. After a riot by the Jews in Jerusalem, Paul was sent to Caesarea to be judged by Felix (Acts 23:26-35). Felix knew the Jews well, for he had a Jewish wife (Acts 24:24). He also knew sufficient of Christianity to realize that Paul was innocent of the charges the Jews laid against him (Acts 23:29; Acts 24:22). Yet he kept Paul imprisoned for two years, simply to please the Jews and so prevent any further unrest (Acts 24:23; Acts 24:27). He was interested to hear of Paul’s religious beliefs, and Paul could have gained his freedom had he paid the bribe Felix wanted (Acts 24:25-26). Paul refused to cooperate, so the heartless Felix left him in prison. In due course Felix returned to Rome, leaving the next governor to deal with the matter as best he could (Acts 24:27; Acts 25:1-5).

Minucius Felix, Marcus , one of the earliest and most pleasing of the Latin Christian apologists. His personal history can only be gathered from his own book. The earliest writer to mention him by name is Lactantius (Institut. v. 1), who describes him as a lawyer, "non ignobilis inter causidicos loci," but Lactantius may be merely drawing a natural inference from the introduction to the book itself, where Minucius tells how he had taken advantage of the court holidays to leave Rome for Ostia, "ad vindimeam feriae judiciariam curam relaxaverant." St. Jerome three times mentions Minucius (Ep. 48 ad Pammach. vol. i. p. 221; Ep. 70 ad Magnum , vol. i. p. 427; de Vir. Illust. c. 58, vol. ii. p. 883), and describes him as "insignis causidicus Romani fori"; but it seems clear that Jerome drew this description from Lactantius, whom he quotes. It has been attempted to deduce the date of Minucius from the place which Jerome assigns him in his list of illustrious men; but there is no evidence that Jerome really knew more than we know ourselves. Still more may the same be said of Eucherius, who speaks of Minucius ( Ep. ad Valer. in Patr. Lat. l. 719). The gens Minucia was widely spread at Rome, and an inscription (Gruter, p. 918) shows among its families one with the cognomen Felix. The only extant work of Minucius is a dialogue entitled "Octavius," modelled on the philosophical works of Cicero, whose writings, particularly de Natura Deorum and de Divinatione , Minucius has carefully studied. Minucius recalls a conversation of his lately deceased friend Octavius which resulted in the conversion to Christianity of their common friend Caecilius. He tells how Octavius had come to Rome, and gives a charming description of the morning walk on the beach taken by the three friends after they had gone from Rome to Ostia, until at last they sat down for rest and serious discussion on large stones placed for protection of the baths. At the beginning of the walk the heathen Caecilius, as they were passing an image of Serapis, had saluted it, as was customary, by kissing hands, whereupon Octavius charged Minucius with culpable negligence in having allowed his friend to continue in such degrading superstition. Caecilius challenges Octavius to a formal dispute.. The little treatise then divides itself into two parts, containing first a lively attack by Caecilius on the Christian doctrines and practices, then a reply, about twice as long, by Octavius, refuting and retorting the heathen arguments. Each point of the attack is dealt with in order. Caecilius confesses himself vanquished, gladly ranging himself on the conquering side. The following is an abstract of the arguments used by Caecilius on the heathen side. He censures the presumption of the Christians, who, though unlettered men, venture to pronounce positively on questions about which the greatest philosophers have doubted; he denies that there is any good ground for believing in the existence of a God, since the chance concourse of atoms will sufficiently account for the origin of the world, while the prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes of the good shew that the world is governed by no Providence. Then shifting his ground, he urges the duty of worshipping the gods whom their ancestors had worshipped, and the folly of rejecting what universal experience and the consent of all nations had found to be salutary. Each nation had its peculiar god: the Romans, the most religious of all, worshipped gods of all nations, and so had attained the highest prosperity. The power of their deities bad been exhibited in many oracles and prodigies; only one or two philosophers had ventured to deny their agency, and one of these, Protagoras, had in consequence been banished by the Athenians. Was it not then deplorable that the gods should be assailed by men of the dregs of the people, who, collecting credulous women and silly men, banded them in a fearful conspiracy, cemented by secret and detestable rites? Tales are repeated, for some of which the authority of Fronto is cited, of the initiation of Christian neophytes by partaking of the blood of a slaughtered infant, and other customary charges. If these things were not true, at least the obscurity in which they shrouded their rites shewed that they were such as they had cause to be ashamed of. These members of an illegal society dreaded to bring their doctrines into the light of day; they had no altars, no temples, no images, and were not even in their manner of worship like the Jews, the only people besides themselves who worshipped that wretched lonely God Who had not been able to save His own people from captivity; yet wished to meddle with everything and pry into every thought and every action. Nor was this the only absurdity of Christian doctrine. They threatened destruction to the world, which always had lasted and was bound together by fixed laws, and said that one day it would be burnt up. Yet for themselves, who were not eternal like the world, but were seen to be born and die, they dared to hope for immortality, and expect that their dust and ashes would live again. In the prospect of this imaginary life they gave up all enjoyment of their real present life, trusting in a God Whose impotence was exhibited in their daily sufferings from which He was unable to save His worshippers. In fine, if the Christians had any modesty, let them give up philosophy, of which their want of education had made them incapable; or if they must philosophize, let them fallow that greatest of philosophers, Socrates, whose maxim was, "What is above us we have nothing to do with," otherwise the result will be either the destruction of all religion or the adoption of anile superstition. Octavius replies that a hearing shall not be refused to the arguments of Christians because of their low worldly condition. Reason is the common property of all men. It is the rich who, intent on their wealth, are too often unable to lift their eyes to things divine. Some of those afterwards recognized as the greatest philosophers were at first despised as poor and plebeian. He then establishes, by the ordinary arguments from the order of the universe, the existence and providence and unity of God, confirming his conclusions by the authority of various philosophers, whose opinions respecting the Deity he extracts from Cicero's treatise. In proof how natural is the belief in God's unity, he appeals to the common use of the singular Deus, both in common speech and in the writings of the poets. He shews that the gods whom the heathen worshipped were but deified men, and exposes the absurdity of the fables commonly told of them, the folly of image-worship, and the cruelty and licentiousness of the rites by which the gods were honoured. He shews that it is false that the Romans owed their prosperity to their religion, since it was by a multitude of irreligious acts that their empire grew, and because their original native gods, to whom, if to any, must be ascribed the origin of their greatness, had been deposed from their position by the adoption of gods of the conquered peoples. He traces the source of all idolatry to the operation of the demons who, having lost their first estate, desired to draw others into the same ruin as themselves, who inspired oracles, wrought fictitious cures and other pretended miracles to deceive men, and were also the inventors and instigators of the calumnies against Christianity. All this was attested by their own confession when exorcised by Christians. Turning to the charges made against the Christians, Octavius not only denies and refutes them, but retorts them on the heathen, who had been the more ready to believe that others had been guilty of them because they had done the like themselves. If the Christians had not temples, or images, or altars, it was because they would not degrade the majesty of the infinite God by limiting Him to a narrow place. Man himself was God's best image, a holy life the best sacrifice that could be offered Him. God is invisible, but so is the wind whose effects we witness; so is our own soul; the sun itself, the source of all light, we cannot look at. As for the Christian doctrines which Caecilius had represented as absurd and incredible, different heathen philosophers had taught a future destruction of the world by fire or otherwise; some of them had taught a transmigration of souls, a doctrine quite as difficult as that of the resurrection of the body and less natural. The doctrine of a future life is recommended by countless analogies of nature; and though men whose lives are bad dislike to believe in future retribution, and prefer to think that death ends all, yet the current popular belief in Pyriphlegethon and Styx, a belief derived from information given by demons and from the Jewish prophets, shews how deep-seated is the conviction that the time will come when it shall not be well with the wicked. Nor is it to be thought that God deals ill with His worshippers because He does not give them a larger share of prosperity in this life: the Christians do not covet earthly riches; they look on trials as their discipline, persecutions as their warfare, in which they are not deserted by their God, but combat under His eye. The Romans honour with their praises such sufferers as Mucius Scaevola and Regulus, yet the heroism of these men has been repeatedly surpassed by that of Christian women and children. Lastly, we need not be disturbed by the failure of sceptical philosophers to arrive at any certain knowledge of truth. These men's lives gave the lie to their professions of wisdom; we, whose excellence is in life and not merely in word, may boast that we have succeeded in finding what they sought in vain, and have only cause for gratitude that a revelation was reserved for our hands which was denied to them. It will be seen how meagre Minucius is in his exposition of Christian doctrine thus differing from all the other apologists. The doctrines of the unity of God the resurrection of the body and future retribution make up nearly the whole of the system of Christian doctrine which he sets forth. The doctrine of the Logos so prominent in the apologies of Justin Athenagoras and Tertullian is absent; our Lord's name is not mentioned and though from the manner in which Octavius repels the charge that the Christians worshipped a man who had been punished for his crimes it may reasonably be inferred that he believed our Lord to be more than man yet this is not plainly stated. Minucius clearly shews that the topics he omits are excluded not from disbelief in or ignorance of them but from a designed limitation of the objects of his work because at the end when Caecilius has declared himself satisfied on the main questions of the existence of God and of Providence and of the general truth of the Christian religion he asks for another conversation not because of remaining doubts but because he desires to be taught other things still necessary to perfect instruction. It cannot be accident that Minucius does not imitate the entire unreserve with which Justin speaks of Christian doctrines and Christian rites. The work of Minucius was doubtless intended mainly to influence intelligent heathen; and we must infer that in the West at least the feeling prevailed when Minucius wrote which made Christians fear to cast their pearls before swine. One striking difference between Minucius and Justin is the former's complete omission of the argument from prophecy yet the inspiration of the Jewish prophets is incidentally recognized (c. 35). Minucius never mentions the writings of either O. or N. T. and has scarcely any coincidence of language with them. There is (c. 29) an echo of Jer_17:5 and perhaps (c. 34) of 1Co_15:36; 1Co_15:42. His date is generally agreed to have been before 250, somewhere about which time Cyprian published his de Idolorum Vanitate , in which large use is made of Minucius. A nearer limit depends on settling the relation of Minucius to Tertullian. His dialogue and the apology of Tertullian have in common so many arguments, sometimes in nearly the same words, that one of the two undoubtedly used the work of the other, but as to which was the follower critics have held opposite opinions. The difficulty is mainly caused by the excellent use both writers have made of their materials, whencesoever obtained, and the thoroughness with which they have incorporated them. We have already shewn the perfect workmanship of the dialogue of Minucius. Tertullian's Apology is equally excellent, though its plan is entirely different. It is an advocate's speech, written for presentation to heathen magistrates to convince them that Christians did not deserve persecution. It is more loosely constructed, and evidently more hastily written, than that of Minucius, but bears a strong stamp of originality. Many points briefly touched on in Minucius are expanded in Tertullian, so that either Minucius has abridged Tertullian or Tertullian has used and developed the suggestions of Minucius. This has furnished the best argument for the priority of Tertullian. Tertullian, it has been said, is one of the most original of writers, Minucius quite the reverse. We have already mentioned his obligations to Cicero; his work is also largely indebted to Seneca, besides containing traces of Juvenal and other writers. Is it not, then, most natural to believe that as he has drawn his arguments for Theism from Cicero, he has taken his defence of Christianity from Tertullian? In the common matter there are considerable differences as to arrangement and form of expression. If Tertullian were the original, Minucius would have a change of arrangement forced on him by the plan of his work, while the changes in form of expression either improve the Latinity or make the sentence more pointed; whereas if Minucius were the original, Tertullian's changes can hardly have any other object than to disguise his obligation. Notwithstanding, a very careful comparison of the common matter led Ebert ( K. Sächs. Ges. der Wissenschaften; philol.-histor. Classe , Bd. v.) to consider Minucius the original, and Ebert's ability in arguing the case obtained for a time general acceptance of his opinion. But recently new evidence has been obtained. The dialogue would seem to describe Minucius as a native of Cirta and fellow-townsman of Fronto, of whom he speaks as "Cirtensis noster," while Octavius refers to him as "Fronto tuus." Now at Cirta (Constantine in Algeria) the French have found six inscriptions containing the name of Caecilius Natalis (Mommsen, Lat. Insc. viii. 6996 and 7094–7098). This Caecilius was chief magistrate of Cirta in 210, and on the completion of five years of office raised at his own expense a triumphal arch in honour of Caracalla, brazen statues in honour of "Indulgentia domini nostri," exhibited "ludos scenicos" for seven days, and in other ways exhibited munificence. See an art. by Dessau ( Hermes , 1880, p. 471). We see no good reason for refusing to identify this Caecilius Natalis with the Caecilius of the dialogue. He is not likely to have been a Christian when discharging the functions just described; the conversation related by Minucius would therefore have occurred somewhat later than 215; and the composition itself might be a score of years later. We thus fall back on the opinion held by the best critics before the publication of Ebert's memoir, that the work of Minucius was written in the peaceful days of Alexander Severus, say a.d. 234. A useful ed. is in Gersdorf's Bibl. Pat. Ecc. (Leipz. 1847), one with variorum notes in vol. iii. of Migne's Patr. Lat. , an excellent one by Holden (Camb.1853),and one by Halm (Vienna, 1867) founded on a new collation of the MS., which may therefore be regarded as the best authority for the text, but contains only critical notes. See also Waltzing, Bibliographie raisonnée de Min. Fel. in Muséon Belge (1902), vi. pp. 216 ff.; also G. Bossier in La fin du Paganisme , 3rd ed. (Paris, 1898), i. 261. There is an English trans. in the Lib of Ante-Nic. Fathers. ^[1]