Mystic, widow, foundress of the Benedictine Oblate congregation of Tor di Specchi, born Rome, Italy, 1384; died there, 1440. Although desirous of entering the religious life, she complied with her father's wishes and married Lorenzo de' Ponziani. In 1433 the pope approved her foundation of Oblates, known as Collatines, and after her husband's death (1436) she retired to Tor di Specchi, and became superioress. She is famous for her devotion to the angels, who appeared to her frequently and guided her, also for her charity to the poor. Canonized, 1608. Relics in church of Saint Francesca Romana, Rome, Italy. Feast, Roman Calendar, March 9,.

ROME . The beginnings of Rome are shrouded in obscurity. The city was situated on the left bank of the Tiber, about 18 miles from its mouth. The original Rome was built on one hill only, the Palatine, but the neighbouring hills were successively included, and about the middle of the sixth century b.c., according to tradition, a wall was built to enclose the enlarged city. The whole circuit of this wall was about 5 miles, and it was pierced by nineteen gates. Within these was a large area of vacant spaces, which were gradually built on later, and at the beginning of the Empire (roughly middle of 1st cent. b.c.) not only was the city congested with buildings, but large areas without the wall were also covered with houses. The Roman Forum, an open space measuring over 300 ft. in length, and about 150 ft. in breadth, was the centre of political, legal, and commercial life. At one end was the rostra or platform, from which speeches were delivered to the public; at the other end were shops. It was flanked by the senate-house and law-courts. On the top of the Capitoline Hill was the Capitolium , or great temple dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, and on the Palatine Hill the principal residence of the Emperor, and the Temple of Apollo, containing the public libraries, Greek and Latin. In the Imperial period four additional fora were built, devoted entirely to legal, literary, and religious purposes the Forum Iulium begun by Julius Cæsar, the Forum Augustum built by Augustus, the Forum Transitorium completed by Nerva, and the Forum Traiani built by Trajan the most splendid work of Imperial times. Various estimates of the population of Rome in the time of Christ have been given: 2,000,000 seems not unlikely. All nationalities in the Empire were represented among them many Jews, who were expelled by Claudius in a.d. 50, but returned at his death four years later. The slave population was very large. The Romans began as one of the members of the Latin league, of which, having become presidents, they eventually became masters. After conquering Latium they were inevitably brought into conflict with the other races of Italy, over most of which they were sovereign about the middle of the 3rd cent. b.c. The extension of Roman territory steadily continued until, in the time of Christ, it included, roughly, Europe (except the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Russia), the whole of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the north-west of Africa. The Roman State was at first ruled by kings, but these gave place to two rulers, known later as consuls . Their powers were gradually circumscribed by the devolution of some of their duties on other magistrates. The period of steady accession of territory was coincident with a bitter struggle between the patrician and the plebeian classes, both of which comprised free citizens. The contest between the orders lasted for about two centuries, and at the end of that period all the offices of State were equally open to both. This was not, however, the establishment of a real democracy, but the beginning of a struggle between the governing class and the mass of the people, which eventually brought the Republic to an end. The civil wars, which during the last century of its existence had almost destroyed it, had shown clearly that peace could be reached only under the rule of one man. The need of the time was satisfied by Augustus, who ruled as autocrat under constitutional forms: the appearance of a republic was retained, but the reality was gone, and the appearance itself gradually disappeared also. For the city of Rome the Empire was a time of luxury and idleness, but the provinces entered upon an era of progressive prosperity. The Emperor was responsible for the government of all provinces where an army was necessary (for instance, Syria), and governed these by paid deputies of his own. The older and more settled provinces were governed by officials appointed by the senate, but the Emperor had his financial interests attended to by procurators of his own even in these. Under the Empire the provinces were much more protected against the rapacity and cruelty of governors than in Republican times. The Emperors themselves stood for just as well as efficient administration, and most of them gave a noble example by strenuous devotion to administrative business. The resident Romans in any province consisted of (1) the officials connected with the Government, who were generally changed annually; (2) members of the great financial companies and lesser business men, whose interests kept them there; (3) citizens of coloniœ (or military settlements), which were really parts of Rome itself set down in the provinces; (4) soldiers of the garrison and their officers; (5) distinguished natives of the province, who, for services rendered to the Roman State, were individually gifted with the citizenship . Such must have been one of the ancestors of St. Paul. The honour was not conferred on all the inhabitants of the Empire till 212 a.d., and in NT times those who possessed it constituted the aristocracy of the communities in which they lived. The Romans have left a great legacy to the world. As administrators, lawyers, soldiers, engineers, architects, and builders they have never been surpassed. In literature they depended mainly on the Greeks, as in sculpture, music, painting, and medicine. In the arts they never attained more than a respectable standard. A. Souter.

The idea of foundation, originating with Pope Gregory XIII, was revived, 1625, by the Irish bishops in an address to Pope Urban VIII. Founded, 1628, by Cardinal Ludovisi, it became known as the nursery of bishops; in 1798 it was closed by order of Napoleon, but revived by brief of Pope Leo XII, 1826. The present building dates from 1835.

The pope who, besides being head of the universal Church, occupies its central and principal see, Rome, in succession to its first bishop, Peter.

A Pontifical Institute in charge of the Jesuit Fathers, but under the direct and immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See, formally established by Pius X, May 7, 1909, through the publication of the Apostolic Constitution, "Vinea electa." The purpose of its institution was to found a post-graduate school for the training of teachers and writers who would be properly qualified to defend the truths of Sacred Scripture. The professors of the Institute are chosen from among the Jesuit Fathers, and are all specialists in their respective branches. The subjects taught embrace the special questions of biblical introduction, archeology, history, geography, philology, and interpretation. Applicants for admission to the Institute must be graduates of philosophy and theology as established for ecclesiastical seminaries or religious clergy, and, if they aspire to degrees in Sacred Scripture, they are further required to have previously taken a doctorate in Sacred Theology. A library, archaeological museum, and special publication complete the facilities of the school. By virtue of a Motu Proprio issued September 30, 1928, by His Holiness Pope Pius XI, the Biblical Institute was incorporated into the Gregorian University, though, nevertheless, it is to remain under the exclusive jurisdiction and obedience of the Roman pontiff.

On the day of Pentecost there were in Jerusalem "strangers from Rome," who doubtless carried with them back to Rome tidings of that great day, and were instrumental in founding the church there. Paul was brought to this city a prisoner, where he remained for two years (Acts 28:30,31 ) "in his own hired house." While here, Paul wrote his epistles to the Philippians, to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, to Philemon, and probably also to the Hebrews. He had during these years for companions Luke and Aristarchus (Acts 27:2 ), Timothy (Philippians 1:1 ; Colossians 1:1 ), Tychicus (Ephesians 6 :: 21 ), Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18 ), and John Mark (Colossians 4:10 ). (See PAUL .) Beneath this city are extensive galleries, called "catacombs," which were used from about the time of the apostles (one of the inscriptions found in them bears the date A.D. 71) for some three hundred years as places of refuge in the time of persecution, and also of worship and burial. About four thousand inscriptions have been found in the catacombs. These give an interesting insight into the history of the church at Rome down to the time of Constantine.

Agapetus , bp. of Rome, was, we are told, a Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a priest (Anast. quoted by Clinton, Fasti Romani, p. 763; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum , p. 73). He was already an old man when, six days after the death of Johannes II., he was elected pope in June 535. He began by formally reversing an act of Bonifacius II., one of his own immediate predecessors, fulminating anathemas against the deceased antipope Dioscorus, A.D. 530 (Anast. vol. i. p. 100). We next find him entering Constantinople on Feb. 19, 536 (Glint. F. R. p. 765), sent thither by Theodahad to avert, if possible, the war with which he was threatened by the emperor Justinian in revenge for the murder of his queen Amalasontha: and we are told that he succeeded in the objects of his mission (Anast. vol. i. p. 102), which must refer to other objects, for lie certainly failed to avert the war; Justinian had already incurred such expense as to be unwilling to turn back (Liberat. quoted by Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici , vii. p. 314), and as a matter of fact Belisarius took Rome within the year. In 535 Anthimus, who was suspected of Monothelitism, had been appointed patriarch of Constantinople by the influence of Theodora. Agapetus, on his first arrival, refused to receive Anthimus unless he could prove himself orthodox, and then only as bp. of Trebizond, for he was averse to the practice of translating bishops. At the same time he boldly accused Justinian himself of Monophysitism; who was fain to satisfy him by signing a "libellus fidei" and professing himself a true Catholic. But the emperor insisted upon his communicating with Anthimus, and even threatened him with expulsion from the city if he refused. Agapetus replied with spirit that he thought he was visiting an orthodox prince, and not a second Diocletian. Then the emperor confronted him with Anthimus, who was easily convicted by Agapetus. Anthimus was formally deposed, and Mennas substituted; and this was done without a council, by the single authority of the pope Agapetus; Justinian of course allowing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theodora (Anast. vol. i. p. 102; Theophanes, Chronogr. p. 184). Agapetus followed up his victory by denouncing the other heretics who had collected at Constantinople under the patronage of Theodora. He received petitions against them from the Eastern bishops, and from the "monks" in Constantinople, as the Archimandrite coenobites were beginning to be called (Baronius, vii. p. 322). He died on April 21, 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765). His body was taken to Rome and buried in St. Peter's basilica, Sept. 17. Five of his letters remain: (1) July 18, 535, to Caesarius, bp. of Arles, about a dispute of the latter with bp. Contumeliosus (Mansi, viii. p. 856). (2) Same date, to same, "De augendis alimoniis pauperum" ( ib. 855). (3) Sept. 9, 535, Reply to a letter from African bishops to his predecessor Johannes ( ib. 848). (4) Same date, reply to Reparatus, bp. of Carthage, who had congratulated him on his accession ( ib. 850). (5) March 13, 536, to Peter, bp. of Jerusalem, announcing the deposition of Anthimus and consecration of Mennas ( ib. 921). Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii. ^[1]

Eutychianus (3) , bp. of Rome from Jan. 275 to Dec. 283, during a period of 8 years, 11 months and 3 days, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus. The truth of the record in the Liberian Catalogue has been confirmed by the discovery by De Rossi (Rom. Sot. ii. 70), in the papal crypt of the cemetery, of fragments of a slab inscribed ΕΥΤΥΧΙΑΝΟC ΕΠΙC (Eutychianus episcopus). Ten decreta appear as his in the collections of Gratian, Ivo, and others. ^[1]

Felicitas (1) , commemorated on Nov. 23; martyr at Rome with her seven sons, under Antoninus Pius, and, according to their Acts, at his personal command, Publius being prefect of the city, c. a.d. 150. It is almost certain that there was no authorized persecution under Antonius Pius, but public calamities stirred up the mob to seek for the favour of the gods by shedding Christian blood ( Julii Capitolini, Vita Antonini Pii , c. 9). Doubtless, in some such way, Felicitas and her children suffered. In her Acts Publius the Prefect is represented as commanded by Antoninus to compel her to sacrifice, but in vain, though he appeals to her maternal affection as well as her fears. He then calls upon each of her sons, Januarius, Felix, Philippus, Sylvanus, Alexander, Vitalis, Martialis, with a similar want of success, the mother exhorting them, "Behold, my sons, heaven, and look upwards, whence you expect Christ with His saints." The prefect, having tortured some of them, reported to the emperor, at whose command they were beheaded. Their martyrdom is commemorated by Gregory the Great, in Hom. 3 super Evang. where, preaching in a church dedicated to her, he lauds Felicitas as "Plus quam martyr quae septem pignoribus ad regnum praemissis, toties ante se mortua est. Ad poenas prima venit sed pervenit octava" ( Mart. Vet. Rom. Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). ^[1]

International rule the government in Rome, Italy, exercised after 27 B.C. when the Republic of Rome died and the Roman Empire was born. The reasons for the fall of the republic are not anymore clearly demonstrable than those surrounding the later fall of the empire. They were the product of a complicated interaction of numerous components that included: changes in the values, wealth, and education of the upper classes; innovations in finances, agriculture, and commerce; expansion of the senate; enormous increases in citizenship; unrest among the classes; problems in maintaining order in the districts in and around Rome, and difficulty in recruiting sufficient personnel for the army. The major factor in its demise seems to have been political. The senate lost political control of the state, and into that vacuum Julius Caesar stepped with ambitions of control that the senate found intolerable. His declaration of himself in early 44 B.C. as perpetual dictator provoked his assassination on the Ides of March by a group of senatorial assassins led by Brutus and Cassius. Caesar's generals, Antony and Lepidus along with Caesar's heir Octavian, formed a temporary ruling triumvirate. They defeated Caesar's assassins in the battle at Philippi in 42 B.C. This finally resulted in the exclusion of Lepidus and the division of the empire into the West, controlled by Octavian, and the East, controlled by Antony. Antony's military failure against the Parthians led to his excessive reliance on Egyptian resources and created a correspondingly inordinate influence of Egypt's Queen Cleopatra on the Roman ruler. Octavian was able to use Antony's reliance on Egypt against him, persuading the senate that Antony wanted to make Alexandria the capital of the empire. The two led their armies against each other in 31 B.C. at Actium in Greece, resulting in the defeat of Antony and the eventual suicide of both Antony and Cleopatra. Octavian became sole ruler and in 27 B.C. took the name: Augustus Caesar. The republic bcame the empire, and Octavian became what Julius had only dreamed of becoming—the first emperor of Rome. Augustus was extremely efficient as an administrator and corrected many of the problems that plagued the old republic. He, unlike Julius, treated the senate with respect and gained theirs in return. He, as the adopted son of the previous ruler, inherited the affection of his army. The relationship proved so popular that, after Augustus, every emperor had to be either the real son or the adopted son of the previous emperor to command the allegiance of the army and of the people of the empire. Augustus reduced the senate gradually from 1,000 to 600 and made membership in it hereditary, although he reserved the privilege of nominating new senators. A major achievement involved sharing power over the empire's provinces. Senatorial provinces were created, over which the senate had jurisdiction and to which they appointed governors or proconsuls. These were peaceful provinces requiring no unusual military presence. Gallio, the brother of Seneca, was made proconsul over the southern Grecian province of Achaia in A.D. 51 during the time Paul was in Corinth (Acts 18:12 ). Imperial provinces were controlled by the emperor. He appointed procurators over these potentially volatile areas, where the Roman legions or armies were stationed. Pontius Pilate was such a procurator or governor over Judea (Luke 3:1 ). Augustus inaugurated an extensive program of social, religious, and moral reform. Special benefits were given to those couples who agreed to have children. Adultery, which previously was widely condoned, was made a public crime entailing severe penalties. Traditional religion was stressed, and 82 pagan temples were renovated. Many ancient cults were revived, further accentuating the time-honored view that the peace and prosperity of the republic was dependent upon the proper observance of religious duty. Augustus became pontifex maximus in 12 B.C., establishing him as both political and religious head of state. An extensive building program was undertaken. Augustus added another forum to the already existing Roman Forum and Forum of (Julius) Caesar. The forum served as a judicial, religious, and commercial center for the city, containing basilicas, temples, and porticoes. Later, other fora were built by Vespasian, Nerva, and Trajan, all of them just north of the old Roman Forum. The great variety of other new structures included theaters, libraries, temples, baths, basilicas, arches, and warehouses. For entertainment purposes, the first permanent amphitheater in Rome's history was built. Extensive water systems were constructed that included artificial lakes, canals, aqueducts, and flood control. The sewage system was renovated. A police force of 3,000 men was created along with a fire-fighting force that numbered 7,000. The first several emperors ruled at the time of the beginning of the Christian movement in the Roman Empire. Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus (27 B.C.-A.D. 14) and conducted His ministry during the reign of Augustus's successor, Tiberius (A.D. 14-37; compare Luke 3:1 ). The latter's image was stamped on a silver denarius that Jesus referred to in a discussion about taxation (Luke 20:20-26 ). In about A.D. 18, Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, built his capital on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and named it Tiberias after the emperor. Tiberius was an extremely able military commander and a good administrator, leaving a large surplus in the treasury when he died. He followed Augustus's example of not expanding the borders of the empire and thus avoiding war. The pax Romana (peace of Rome) which Augustus had inaugurated was preserved, providing easy, safe travel throughout the empire. Paul undoubtedly referred to this in Galatians 4:4 when he wrote: “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son” (author's italics). Tiberius was never popular with the senate and chose to leave Rome at the first opportunity, choosing after A.D. 26, to rule the empire from his self-imposed seclusion on the Isle of Capri. In this year Pontius Pilate was appointed governor of Judea, a post he held until A.D. 36, just prior to the death of Tiberius in A.D. 37. Tiberius was succeeded by his mentally unbalanced grandnephew, Gaius (Caligula), who proved to be a disaster. During his reign (A.D. 37-41) and that of his successor, his aging uncle Claudius (A.D. 41-54), most of the ministry of the apostle Paul took place. Claudius is reported to have expelled Jews from Rome who were creating disturbances at the instigation of Christ (compare Acts 18:2 ). Initially, his contemporaries viewed Claudius as inept, but he proved to have considerable hidden talents of administration and turned out to be one of Rome's more proficient emperors. He was responsible for the conquest of southern Britain in A.D. 43-47, although it took another 30 years to subjugate northern Britain and Wales. His fourth wife, Agrippina, is mentioned on a recently discovered sarcophagus in the Goliath family cemetery on the western edge of Jericho. She poisoned Claudius in A.D. 54 to speed up the succession of Nero, her son by a previous marriage. Nero (A.D. 54-68) was in some respects worse than Caligula. He was a man without moral scruples or interest in the Roman populace except for exploitation of them. Both Paul and Peter seem to have been martyred during Nero's reign, perhaps in connection with the burning of Rome by Nero in A.D. 64, an event that he blamed on Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that when the fire subsided, only four of Rome's fourteen districts remained intact. Yet Paul wrote, “All the saints greet you, especially those of the emperor's household,” (Philippians 4:22 NRSV). Nero's hedonism and utter irresponsibility led inevitably to his death. The revolt of Galba, one of his generals, led to Nero's suicide. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, three successive emperor-generals, died within the year of civil war (A.D. 68-69) that followed Nero's death. Vitellius's successor was Vespasian, one of the commanders who had taken Britain for Claudius and who was in Judea squelching the first Jewish revolt. He was declared emperor by the Syrian and Danube legions and returned to Rome to assume the post, leaving his son Titus to finish the destruction of Jerusalem with its holy Temple in the next year (A.D. 70). This event was prophesied by Jesus toward the end of His life when He said: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near” (Luke 21:20 NRSV). The aristocratic Julio-Claudian dynasties that had reigned until the death of Nero were happily replaced by the Flavian dynasty, which issued from the rural middle class of Italy and reflected a more modest and responsible approach to the use of power. Vespasian's reign (A.D. 69-79) was succeeded by the brief tenure of his son Titus (A.D. 79-81), who at his death gave way to the rule of his brother Domitian (A.D. 81-96). The fourth century historian Eusebius reported that the apostle John was exiled to Patmos (compare Revelation 1:9 ) in the reign of Domitian. Eusebius also claimed that in Nerva's reign the senate took away Domitian's honors and freed exiles to return home, thus letting John return to Ephesus. Nerva's reign was brief, lasting little more than a year (A.D. 96-98). He was succeeded by Trajan (A.D. 98-117), who bathed the empire red in the blood of Christians. His persecution was more severe than that instituted by Domitian. Irenaeus wrote in the second century that John died in Ephesus in the reign of Trajan. The persecution of the church, depicted in the Revelation of John, probably reflects the ones initiated by Trajan and Domitian. Trajan, the adopted son of Nerva, was the first emperor of provincial origin. His family roots were in the area of Seville, Spain. Marcus Aurelius, a later emperor of Spanish descent (A.D. 161-180), also persecuted the church. Trajan adopted Hadrian, his nephew by marriage, who succeeded him (A.D. 117-138) and quickly abandoned his predecessor's only partially successful attempts to conquer the East. More than half of Hadrian's reign was spent in traveling throughout the empire and involving himself deeply in the administration of the provinces, an activity for which he was especially talented. He left evidence of his propensity for building all over the Mediterranean world including the arch at the entrance to the precincts of the Athenian temple of Jupiter, the Ecce Homo Arch in Jerusalem, his villa near Rome, and the magnificent Pantheon in Rome, whose perfectly preserved construction continually awes the visitor. Hadrian will be best remembered by those of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, however, because of his attempt to hellenize Jerusalem by changing the name of the city to Aelia Capitolina, by erecting a temple to himself and Zeus on the site of the previous Temple of Solomon, and by prohibiting circumcision. The brutal way in which he put down the unavoidable revolt from A.D. 132-135 was consistent with Hadrian's declaration of himself as another Antiochus Ephiphanes (the second century B.C. hellenizer who, while king of Syria, also dehysecrated the Jewish Temple and precipitated the Maccabean Revolt). See Intertestamental History. The success of the Roman Empire depended upon the ability of the legions to keep peace throughout the world. Pax Romana was the key to prosperity and success. Greek and Latin were universal languages; nevertheless, most of the conquered countries retained their own languages as well, including Celtic, Germanic, Semitic, Hamihytic, and Berber. Not since that time has the world been able to so effectively communicate in common languages. If the Mediterranean Sea is included, the Roman Empire was roughly the size of the continental United States, reaching from Britain to Arabia and from Germany to Morocco. One could go from one end of the Mediterranean to the other by boat in three weeks. Less effectively, one could travel 90 miles a day on the fine network of roads that interlaced the empire, including the Appian Way and the Egnatian Way. The quality of the Greco-Roman culture disseminated by Rome was strongest in the areas bordering the Mediterranean and weakest in those farthest removed from major routes of communication. The most effective resistance to the culture was, as might be expected, among the eastern countries such as Egypt, Syrian, Mesopotamia, and the Levant (Syria-Palestine) which had the longest history of civilization. Western Europe, with a comparatively recent and uncivilized history, was no opposition and was soon thoroughly and permanently immersed in the phenomenon of western civilization. Education in the empire was the prerogative of the wealthy. The poor had neither the time, the money, nor the need for an education that was designed to prepare the upper classes for positions of public service. The goal of education was to master the spoken word. Successful civic life was tied to proficiency in the language. Oratory was indispensable. Grammar and rhetoric were the primary subjects of study with emphasis on style over content. Among Latin authors, Virgil, Terence, Sallust, and Cicero were studied most while Homer, Thucydides, Demosthenes, and the Attic tragedians were the favorite Greek writers. In the beginning of the empire, religion was diverse and almost chaotic. Both politicians and philosophers attempted to bring the same order to religion that they achieved in other aspects of Roman life. The Roman emperor was the head of the state religion, which included worship of the emperor and the traditional gods of Rome. The emperor functioned as semidivine while alive and as a god after his death. John may refer to emperor worship in Pergamum, where the first Asian temple to a Roman emperor was erected, in his references to the place “where Satan's throne is” (perhaps meaning the altar of Zeus; Revelation 2:13 NRSV). Mystery religions such as Mithraism, and the worship of Cybele and Isis were abundant. Philosophical systems, such as Epicureanism and Stoicism, functioned virtually as religions for agnostic intellectuals. Judaism, with its monotheistic emphasis, and Christianity, with its Judaistic origin and equally high code of ethics and morals, were anomalies. The inevitable clash between Judeo-Christians and the Romans was a clash between monotheism and polytheism, between morality and immorality. John McRay

Any attempt to describe Rome in the middle of the 1st cent. could be made only by one alike endowed with sympathetic imagination and equipped with minute erudition. Such an attempt has been made, not altogether unsuccessfully, by F. W. Farrar in his Darkness and Dawn (London, 1891), as well as by other writers. In this article it has seemed best to mention one or two points in which Rome of that period differed from a modern great city, and to follow this up by giving some account of certain important buildings of the early Empire, whether they actually date from the later Republic or not. The writer has not rigidly excluded those that belong to a period somewhat later than Nero, but he has as far as possible confined his attention throughout to buildings of which actual remains exist. He has been indebted to standard works mentioned in the Literature, but has himself seen everything which he describes. The population of Rome at the time St. Paul reached it, about a.d. 60, may be estimated roughly at from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000, of which a very large proportion were slaves. The streets of the city were for the most part narrow, and no vehicles were allowed inside the city walls except the wagons necessary for building purposes. The traveller who did not walk was conveyed in a sedan chair or on horseback to one of the city gates, where his carriage was awaiting him. The public buildings were magnificent, but many of the dwelling-houses, three or more stories high, were in a state of dangerous disrepair. Crassus, the great financier of the 1st cent. b. c., owned much of this property, and derived a large fortune from it. Martial and Juvenal, towards the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd cent. a.d., describe the perils to the pedestrian from falling tiles, etc. The dangers to the health of slum dwellers were to some extent obviated by the open-air life commonly led, by the porticces which gave protection from sun and rain, by the theatre, amphitheatre, circus, etc. There was no proper lighting of the streets at night. Active life was supposed to end at sunset, and those who were abroad after dark were accompanied by torch-bearers, as the Londoners of the 18th cent. by link-boys. Not till the time of Augustus was there any police in Rome, but the riots of the 1st cent. b.c. had shown the necessity, and Augustus divided the city into wards (regiones), and established an excellent police system, of which archaeological remains have been found. Palatine Hill.-There is a general consensus of opinion that the original Rome, Roma Quadrata (‘Square Rome’), was on the Palatine Hill only-the hill of Pales, the shepherds’ god. It is with the S.W. angle that the earliest legends of Rome are mostly associated. It was there that the basket was found containing the twins Romulus and Remus, after it had been washed ashore by the Tiber. There also was the lair of the she-wolf that suckled the twins, etc. The Palatine Hill is kept for the most part sacred from modern buildings, and is almost entirely covered by ruins of buildings belonging to various epochs. Excavation is still going on, but seemingly no attempt is made to check the growth of vegetation. In the Republican period the Palatine became a fashionable residential quarter. Here was the house of Cicero. On his exile in 58 b.c. the house was destroyed and the site confiscated, but in the next year it was restored to him. The Emperor Augustus was born near the N.E. corner, and various rooms of a house belonging to his wife Livia are still shown on the hill, with the frescces on the inside walls. Under the Empire practically the whole of the hill was converted into a huge Imperial residence. The process was begun by Augustus, who acquired a valuable property which had once belonged to the orator Hortensius, and added to it by the purchase of adjoining properties. There the Imperial palace was built. Fire and destruction worked upon this and other buildings, and we cannot with certainty identify remains on the hill as belonging to buildings of a particular date. What one sees is great masses of brickwork, with arched roofs. The bricks are square, and very thin as compared with those of to-day. The surviving edifices impress one greatly by their size and strength, but by nothing else. The whole looks excessively shabby. The explanation is that what we are now looking on is only the inner core of the building proper. In the heyday of their existence all these shabby brick buildings were encased in marble. The marble, in the course of ages, has been stripped off, partly in the interests of the decoration of Christian churches, and partly to be pounded down and made into lime. There is a well-known saying of Augustus that he found Rome built of brick and left it made of marble. On seeing these ruins it occurred to the present writer that what was meant by this saying was simply that he had covered brick buildings with marble. The Imperial palace on the Palatine was successively altered or enlarged, as the tastes or requirements of successive Emperors demanded. One most important building must be mentioned before we leave this hill, or mountain, as the Romans called it (see Roman Empire), namely, the temple and precinct of Apollo on the N. E. part of the hill. The decoration of the temple was magnificent. In a double colonnade connected with it were statues of each of the fifty fabled daughters of Danaus, and there also were the Imperial libraries of Greek and Roman literature, one of the earliest public libraries in Italy, splendidly equipped by Augustus not only with manuscript books but also with busts of the great authors. Capitol.-In modern times the Capitoline Hill is disfigured on the southern side by a hideous barrack-like erection with a campanile, called the Campidoglio, and on the other peak, the Arx, there is being erected an enormous monument to commemorate united Italy. The great ornament of the Capitoline in ancient times was the temple of Jupiter, Best and Greatest (the god whom the Latin allies worshipped on the Alban Mount), together with Juno and Minerva. It was to this great temple that all the triumphal processions of Rome made their way. It was approached immediately by the Cliuus Capitolinus, ‘Capitoline slope,’ from the Forum. The temple measured about 204 ft. by 188 ft. At the angle of the hill nearest the Tiber was the Tarpeian Rock, from which criminals were hurled. The sheer cliff may be seen from various points. One of the most prominent ancient features on the Capitoline Hill to-day is the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, placed there in 1538, probably under the direction of Michael Angelo, who was commissioned to lay out this site in as worthy a manner as possible. The statue owes its preservation to the belief that it was supposed to represent the earliest Christian Emperor, whereas, as a matter of fact, Marcus was one of the greatest persecutors of the Church. It is the only equestrian statue of an Emperor that has survived. The Arx was in ancient times for the most part not built on: it was from the ground there that heralds got the sacred plants which played a part in the conclusion of treaties with foreign powers. The plant (uerbena sagmina) symbolized the soil of Rome. The temple of Iuno Moneta was on this height; it was the seat of the Mint. Forum.-Both these hills flank the Forum, to which most of our space must be devoted. Standing near the Cliuus Capitolinus, one looks straight down the Forum, and there must have been a lovely view of the Alban mountains in the distance, before the enormous Flavian amphitheatre, commonly called the Colosseum, shut it off. We must try to touch briefly on each of the more important buildings of which there are traces in the Forum. Like the Palatine, it is shut off from modern intrusions. The Forum was the centre of the throbbing life of the ancient city-the life social, commercial, legal, and political. Occupying a central position in the hollow surrounded by the various heights, it was the natural meeting-place of the communities on the hills above, and this it continued to be as long as ancient Rome lasted. It was flanked by all sorts of shops, those of the money-changers or bankers included. Military processions passed through it. The people were addressed there. Funeral processions stopped there for the funeral oration to be pronounced. In the adjoining buildings law-cases were tried. An enumeration of the buildings, proceeding from N. to S., will serve to give some notion of the comprehensiveness of the life of the Forum. The Tabularium or Record Office was situated at the foot of the Capitol, and was built in 78 b.c. Its lower courses, on which mediaeval work is now superimposed, are the most splendid specimens of Republican masonry surviving. In front of this was the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, erected in a.d. 80. Three columns are still standing. There is also a richly decorated frieze and cornice. An inscription records that the temple was restored by Septimius Severus and Caracalla. To the left of this was the Temple of Concord. This temple with concrete foundations, built by M. Furius Camillus in 366 b.c., was restored by Opimius in 121 b.c., and again rebuilt by Tiberius in a.d. 7-10. Only the threshold is preserved, but some parts of the columns are to be found in museums. Beyond this are the remains of the Mamertine Prison, where the Catilinarian conspirators Lentulus and Cethegus were strangled by order of the consul Cicero. The tradition that St. Paul was confined there is valueless. To return to the other side, we come to the Temple of Saturn. Of this great temple the lofty sub-structures are preserved. The eight columns of red and grey granite belong to a late restoration. This restoration was irregular and carelessly carried out. The temple was originally built about 500 b.c. In its vaults was stored the public treasure of Rome. Julius Caesar, after crossing the Rubicon and thus declaring civil war, forced his way in and seized £300,000 of coined money, as well as 15,000 gold and 30,000 silver ingots. Right over on the other side is the Arch of Severus. This was built in a.d. 203 as a memorial of the victorious campaigns of the Emperor Septimius Severus in the East. In ancient times it was reached by steps, being above the level of the Forum, and now that the ground has been cleared away, that is again true. The middle archway is 40 ft. 4 ins. in height and 22 ft. 11 ins. wide; the side archways are exactly as high as the large one is wide, but they are only 9 ft. 10 ins. wide. There are four columns on each façade standing on high bases. The bas-reliefs are the most interesting part. Some represent legionary soldiers leading prisoners from the East in chains. Another figures Rome receiving the homage of conquered Oriental peoples. The great majority depict detailed scenes of the various stages of war. In front of this arch lie some of the most antique remains yet discovered in Rome-the Lapis Niger, etc. At this place there was probably a grave or an ill-omened place of some sort. The most interesting part is a rectangular column covered with inscriptions on all four faces. The writing goes from the top down and from the bottom up. The letters show a great resemblance to those of the Greek alphabet, from which the Latin alphabet is admittedly derived. The date is not later than the 5th cent. b.c. The sense cannot be made out. All we can say is that there is mention of a rex, of iouxmenta, ‘beasts of burden,’ and of a kalator, ‘public servant’; the words sakros esed (= sacer sit, ‘let so-and-so be sacred’) occur also. It is probably a portion of a religious law that we have here. Beyond the Black Stone lies all that remains of the Comitium, the voting-place of the Republic. Beyond this again lies the Church of S. Adriano, which corresponds to the main room of the Senate House of the Empire. It was constructed by Julius Caesar. The situation of the smaller committee room is also known. The level of the ground round about has been gradually raised in the period intervening between the original date of the building and the present day. If we turn back again to get to the other side we come to the remains of three large oblong erections parallel with one another, all much larger than any with which we have yet had to do. The first is the Basilica aemilia. It is only recently that this has been thoroughly excavated. The original building on this site goes back to the year 179 b.c., when its construction was completed by two censors. Lucius aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Perseus of Macedon, seems to have decorated it, as an inscription in his honour has lately been found among the ruins. The building was restored by another aemilius, consul in 78 b.c. A coin of 61 b.c. shows the building as a two-storied portico. In 54 b.c. it was again restored by yet another aemilius-it was a sort of monument of this family-with Julius Caesar’s approval and at his expense. The building was restored again after a fire in 14 b.c. at the expense of the Emperor Augustus. The next restoration took place in a.d. 22 in the reign of Tiberius. Of the Republican building only foundations remain. The entrance opens into six rooms which served for banking business, etc. A staircase led to the upper story, which was similarly arranged. The main room was 95 ft. wide and about 228 ft. long. The galleries above the side aisles were supported by columns. A considerable number of these have been found lying among the other ruins, in all cases broken, but in some cases more so than in others. These are like Peterhead granite, and form part of the 5th cent. reconstruction, which was very thorough. Next comes the Forum Romanum proper-an open space. At the end nearest to the site of the later Arch of Severus stood the Rostra of the Republic. This was a raised platform decorated with the prows of ships captured in the First Carthaginian War in 260 b.c., under Duillius: hence the name. From this platform many a historic speech, many a funeral oration, including that of Mark Antony on Julius Caesar, was delivered. Another interesting feature of the Forum, of which only the basis now survives, was a bronze equestrian statue of the Emperor Domitian, raised towards the end of the 1st cent. a.d. and described in detail by Statius in the first of his miscellaneous pcems called Siluae. Leaving the Forum proper, we cross the Sacra Via (the pcet Horace ^[1] by the requirements of his metre said uia sacra, but to the ordinary Roman it would have been as absurd to say Via Sacra as to say ‘Street Oxford’ or ‘Street Princes’ to-day). This Sacred Way was one of the oldest streets in Rome. Its exact course through the Forum is uncertain, but it would appear that it passed between the Forum proper and the Basilica Iulia, that it then went N.E. and ran along the east side of the Forum, turning southwards eventually and passing under what is now the Arch of Titus. It was the thoroughfare through the Forum, and was connected with almost every movement of importance, sacred and secular, throughout the whole of Roman history. Crossing it, we come to what was by far the largest edifice in the Forum, the Basilica Iulia. Nothing but the pavement and the basis of some of the columns now remains. It was begun in the year 54 b.c. and was dedicated, though not yet finished, by the dictator Julius Caesar on the day of the celebration of the victory over his Pompeian enemies at Thapsus in 46 b.c. Augustus completed it. On its destruction by fire, he built a much larger building, which retained the original name. It consisted of three parts-a vestibule on the Sacra Via side, the main hall with the galleries surrounding it, and the separated rooms situated behind it. The main hall, used as a law-court, etc., was 328 ft. long and 118 ft. wide (central nave 271 ft. by 59 ft.). Thirty-six pillars of brick covered with marble surrounded the central nave, and into this nave the galleries in the upper story opened. The roof above the central nave was constructed with a clerestory. Much timber was used in making the roof. Four tribunals could try cases at once in this large hall, so that there must have been partitions between them. It is on record that an orator with a specially powerful voice who was pleading before one tribunal received applause from the crowds attending in all four courts. Such buildings have a special interest for us, as it was on them that one at least of the earliest types of Christian church was modelled, and from them that it received the name Basilica, which is still current. Crossing the Vicus Tuscus or Etrurian Street, which went at right angles to the Sacra Via, we come to the great Temple of Castor or the Castors. The three columns which still stand are at once one of the most conspicuous and one of the most beautiful monuments remaining in the Forum. The temple itself was one of the most ancient of Roman foundations, going back to about 500 b.c. The legend of the help given by the twin-brother gods to the Romans when in straits at the battle of Regillus is familiar to all. The temple was the repayment of a vow. Frequently reconstructed as it was, the remains we now know date from the beginning of the 2nd cent. a.d. under Trajan and Hadrian. It is quite a steep climb to get to the floor of the temple. This is of black and white mosaic laid in Tiberius’ time, and covered a century later with slabs of variegated marble. The testing of weights and measures was carried on in this temple. We come next to the Lacus Iuturnae. At the foot of the Palatine the goddess who presided over the springs which bubble forth there was worshipped as Juturna, she who appears in Virgil’s aeneid as the sister of Turnus, the king of the Rutulians. The pool is about 6½ ft. deep and about 16 ft. 9 ins. square. It is fed by two springs. Various ornaments and other interesting objects have been dug out there. In this neighbourhood are three (or rather two) connected buildings, all belonging to the same cult, that of Vesta. They are respectively the circular aedes Vestae and the Atrium Vestae, with the Domus Virginum Vestalium. The worship of Vesta was the worship of fire and the hearth. Fire is to the house a continual necessity, whether for the cooking of food or for the external warmth of the body, and it has for the city’s house the same importance as for the private house. Just as there were a fire and a hearth in every private house, so there were a fire and a hearth in the central part of every Latin town, belonging to the people itself. In the primitive community it was important that there should be a central fire belonging equally to all the citizens, where fire could be obtained for their houses, if their own fire had gone out. It must never be allowed to go out. Six noble ladies in Rome, vowed to single life, were appointed to guard this fire. Their connexion with the town religion, as well as their high birth, made them a power in Rome, and they were universally respected. The importance of this cult is reflected in the ruins surviving in the Forum. The Temple of Vesta was round, a less common shape than the square or rectangular, and the foundations alone survive. It stood upon a circular substructure 46 ft. in diameter and was ornamented by pilasters. The entrance faced exactly east. The altar was not quite in the middle. The other two buildings ought strictly to be regarded as one, the central Atrium Vestae, which was very large, being flanked on both sides by the living-rooms of the Vestals’ house. This house was roomy and splendid, but shut in like a cloister. The central part of the Atrium seems to have been laid out as a garden. There is much of interest about this place that must be passed over. Right at the other side is the Temple of the god Antoninus and the goddess Faustina. On the death of the Empress Faustina in a.d. 141, the Senate, at the instance of her husband, who had been passionately devoted to her, elevated her among the gods, and vowed her a temple, the construction of which was begun almost at once. The name of Antoninus himself was added to that of his wife at his own death. The vestibule of the temple has six unfluted columns of EubCEan marble, 55 ft. 9 ins. high and 4 ft. 9 ins. in diameter. The shafts of the columns have numerous inscriptions on them. A church was built into this temple before the 12th century. At the southern end of the Forum, on higher ground at the top of the Sacra Via, stands the Arch of Titus. This noble structure was decreed by the Senate and people to the Emperor Titus after the triumphant end of the war with Judaea and the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, but was not completed till after the end of his reign (a.d. 81). Piers at the sides, having been seriously injured in the course of repeated misuse of the building in the Middle Ages, were skilfully renewed in 1821. The chief features of the arch are the numerous reliefs with which it is adorned. One shows the Emperor in a chariot crowned by the goddess of Victory. Here also are the lictors carrying the bundles of rods. The most notable relief represents a section of the triumphal procession, where the treasures of the Temple at Jerusalem are being carried on litters; on the first the table of the shewbread and the trumpets of the year of Jubilee, on the second the seven-branched candlestick. Such is a cursory review of the most notable surviving ruins in the Forum, belonging to the period of the Republic and the early Empire. The area is about 430 by 110 yards. If the grandeur of the ruins impresses one, the impression of decay, perhaps even shabbiness, is also vivid. But the setting in which the remains appear adds glory to them. Vegetation is not seriously interfered with, and in early April one may see growing wild there clover, vetch, cranesbill, geranium, violet, pink, cyclamen, periwinkle, borage, blue anemone, wallflower, birdsfoot trefoil, etc. On some of the ruined walls you will find, five weeks before English time, the wistaria, surely the most exquisitely delicate of all creepers. In the warm period of the day the lizards scurry hither and thither. Above, on the Palatine, wild mignonette abounds. Beyond the Forum to the south is the Flavian Amphitheatre (commonly called the Colosseum). It is one of the most wonderful ruined structures in the world. In this vast edifice, where many a victim bestial and human was ‘butchered to make a Roman holiday,’ there was room for very many thousands of spectators. The building is a beautiful oval in shape. It is upwards of 180 ft. in height and one-third of a mile in circumference. The exterior is ornamented by three styles of columns-the Doric on the lowest range, the Ionic in the middle, and the Corinthian above. The inside sloping part, where stone seats rose in tiers, was built by the most skilful use of the arch. Beneath the arena there is a vast number of rooms, and certain of these may have been used to house the victims till they were required for exhibition. The nearest modern analogy to the Roman amphitheatre is the Spanish bull-ring (plaza de toros) built on the same model. In both, the system of entrances and exits to the various parts of the house is admirably efficient. In both the sunlight has to be reckoned with, and on occasion in Rome a silk awning was drawn over the top. Towards the end of the 1st cent. of the Empire, tickets (nomismata) were often showered upon the populace from above (Stat. Sliuae, i. 6; Martial, passim). Each ticket bore on it the indication of a prize which the lucky catcher obtained on presenting it at an office in the city. Law-courts.-Leaving this quarter of the city, we can now return to the northern end of the Forum. As the volume of legal business increased with the settled state of the Empire, now free from the curse of civil war, additional law-courts became necessary, and Emperors vied with one another in building them. North of the northern end of the Forum proper was built the Julian Forum, north of that the Augustan, and west of that the huge square forum of Trajan with double apses, bounded on its west side by the Basilica Ulpia. Yet this does not exhaust the number of these buildings. Behind the place where the temple of Antoninus and Faustina afterwards stood, was Vespasian’s Forum with the Temple of Peace. To connect this with the Augustan Forum just mentioned, Nerva built one which was called after him, but also called ‘Transitorium’ (the connecting Forum). Of all this wonderful group of glorious buildings very little remains. On the north side of the Augustan Forum was the Temple of Mars Ultor. The three columns and architrave of this building, vowed by Augustus on the battle-field of Philippi and dedicated in 2 b.c., are all that remain to show how splendid a structure it was. The only portion of the Forum Transitorium that remains visible is a fragment of the eastern enclosing wall of the forum with two columns belonging to the colonnade half buried in the ground. The cornice and attic of the wall project above and behind these columns. On the attic is a figure of Minerva in relief. Trajan, in order to build his forum, had to cut away the S.W. spur which connects the Quirinal Hill with the Capitoline Mount. The earth was carted away and used to cover up an old cemetery. Of all Trajan’s magnificent buildings nothing remains uncovered but the central portion-about half the area-of the Basilica Ulpia, with the Column of Trajan in a rectangular court at the further side of the Basilica. The column, which had a statue of Trajan on the top, is over 100 ft. high, and is said to be exactly the height of the spur of the hill which was cut away. It is notable as having a series of reliefs arranged spirally from the basis to the capital-namely, twenty-three blocks of Parian marble. The Senate and people of Rome erected the column in the year 113. The reliefs are of immense interest as depicting many scenes in the wars carried on by Trajan against the Dacians. This people lived in modern Transylvania and also south of the Carpathians in Wallachia and part of Roumania. In the time of the Flavian Emperors they became a serious menace to the Empire. By Trajan’s time their king had established a great military power. The second of Trajan’s wars with them resulted in the conquest of Dacia (105-106) and the reduction of it to the status of a Roman province. The reliefs are a contemporary historical document of value unsurpassed in the whole of Roman history. Apart from its historical value, the monument has been described as ‘the most important example of an attempt to create a purely Roman art filled with the Roman spirit.’ Of further ancient monuments one must simply select one or two for mention. Near the Tiber the vaulted channel of the Cloaca Maxima (Great Drain) can be observed. This construction first made habitable the marshy ground of the Forum and the land between the Capitoline and the Palatine. Near this is a circular building, once perhaps the Temple of Mater Matuta, now the Church of S. Maria del Sole. The superstructure is solid marble, and had a peristyle of twenty Corinthian columns, of which one is now lost. Some considerable distance N. of this, in what was once the Campus Martins, is the Pantheon, the most complete and the most impressive surviving monument of the earliest Imperial period. The original building, erected in 27 b.c., was burned in a.d. 80, restored by Domitian, struck by lightning and again burned in 110, and finally restored by Hadrian (120-124). It is his building we now see. It is a huge rotunda of the simplest proportions. The height of the cupola is the same as that of the drum upon which it rests, and the total height of the building is therefore the same as the diameter of the pavement. The dome is not solid concrete throughout. There are the beginnings of an articulated system of supports between which the weight is distributed. On either side of the vestibule are niches in which colossal statues of Agrippa (the builder) and Augustus once stood. The one opening in the roof admits sufficient light. The building, originally erected to all the divine protectors of the Julian house, has since a.d. 609 been used mostly as a church. What the Church, the great destroyer of Roman pagan buildings, did not ruin, it modified and used for its own purposes. Literature.-The most minute works on the topography of ancient Rome are H. Jordan and C. Huelsen, Topographie der Stadt Romans , 2 vols., Berlin, 1871-1907; O. Richter, Topographic der Stadt Romans 2 (in Iwan von Müller’s Handbuch), Munich, 1901. The best work on the Forum is C. Huelsen, The Roman Forum, Eng. translation , Rome, 1906, 21909 (cf. his I più recenti scavi nel Foro Romano, Rome, 1910). Other works of value and interest are T. Ashby, in A Companion to Latin Studies, ed. Sandys, Cambridge, 1910, pp. 35-47, and W. Ramsay and R. A. Lanciani, A Manual of Roman Antiquities15, London, 1894 (especially as introductions); H. S. Jones, Classical Rome, do., 1910, and the fascinating works by R. A. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, do., 1889, Pagan and Christian Rome, do., 1892, and Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, do., 1897. The most convenient and up-to-date maps are in H. Kiepert and C. Huelsen, Formae Urbis Romae Antiquae: accedit Nomenclator Topographicus, Berlin, 1896, 21912. A. Souter.

Paul's first visit was between the restoration by Augustus, whose boast was "he had found the city of brick and left it of marble" (Suet., Aug. 28), and that by Nero after its conflagration. His residence was near the "barrack" (praetorium ) attached to the imperial palace on the Palatine (Philippians 1:13). (See PALACE.) Modern Rome lies N. of ancient Rome, covering the Campus Μartius , or "plain" to the N. of the seven hills; the latter (Revelation 17:9), the nucleus of the old city, stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the Tiber is the higher ridge, Janiculum , also the Vatican. The Mamertine prison where legend makes Peter and Paul to have been fellow prisoners for nine months is still under the church of Giuseppe dei Falegnani ; but see 2 Timothy 4:11. (See PETER.) The chapel on the Ostian road marks the legendary site of the two parting for martyrdom. The church of Ρaolo alle Τre Fontane on the Ostian road is the alleged site of Paul's martyrdom. The church of Ρietro in Μontorio on the Janiculum is that of Peter's martyrdom. The chapel "Domine quo Vadis? " on the Appian road marks where Peter in the legend met the Lord, as he was fleeing from martyrdom. (See PETER.) The bodies of the two apostles first lay in the catacombs ("cemeteries" or sleeping places: Eusebius, H. E. ii. 25); then Paul's body was buried by the Ostian road, Peter's beneath the dome of the famous basilica called after him (Caius, in Eusebius, H. E. ii. 25). All this is mere tradition. Real sites are the Colosseum and Nero's gardens in the Vatican near to Peter's; in them Christians wrapped in beasts' skins were torn by dogs, or clothed in inflammable stuffs were burnt as torches during the midnight games! Others were crucified (Tacitus, Annals xv. 44). The catacombs , "subterranean galleries" (whether sand pits or excavations originally is uncertain), from eight to ten feet, high, and four to six wide extending for miles, near the Appian and Nomentane ways, were used by the early Christians as places of refuge, worship, and burial. The oldest inscription is A.D. 71; thence to A.D. 300 less than thirty Christian inscriptions are known bearing dates, 4,000 undated are considered anterior to Constantine.

ROME, ROMANS.—Though the name ‘Romans’ appears only once in the Gospels (John 11:48), if we except the adverb Ῥωμαιστί (John 19:20), which is translation ‘in Latin’ by Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , Rome and the Romans are a very real presence in the Gospel narratives, forming a sort of background to the action of the leading figures. The influence of the world-power is shown by the references to the Emperor (Matthew 22:17, Mark 12:14, Luke 2:1; Luke 3:1; Luke 20:22; Luke 23:2, John 19:12), the governor Pontius Pilate (see Pilate), the tax-gatherers (Matthew 5:46 etc.), the centurions (Mark 15:39, Luke 7:2 etc.), and the soldiers (Matthew 27:27 etc.). The Gospels testify to the ultra-national feeling of those Jews who were antagonistic to the Roman power, and illustrate the hatred and contempt felt for those of their countrymen—the tax-gatherers, for example—who took employment from the government. The more intellectually enlightened among the Jews—the Sadducees, for instance—welcomed the Roman rule as they welcomed the Greek civilization and culture which it brought with it; but the great mass of the people were in a state of unreasoning opposition to it. The disposition of Pilate may be advanced as an excuse for their attitude, but in general it cannot be denied that the Jews did not deserve to retain their former liberty, that they were ungrateful to the Romans for the special privileges conferred on them, and that they forgot the advantages which the powerful protection of Rome and the advancement and security of trade thus accruing brought to them. The student of history will regard the fate which came upon them in a.d. 70, and which is referred to in Luke 21:20 ff., as deserved. The stiffneckedness of the Jews brought upon them a ruin which other subject-races in the Empire had escaped by a wise submission. The beginnings of Rome are shrouded in obscurity, but the spade has helped to correct and amplify what we learn from history. The city was situated on the left bank of the Tiber, about eighteen miles from its mouth. The original Rome was built only on the Palatine Hill. When the people of Romulus Mere united with the Sabines, the Capitoline Hill, the Forum, and perhaps part of the Quirinal, were added. Mons Cœlius was occupied by Etrusean colonists from the other side of the river, and conquest led to the later inclusion of the Aventine, the Viminal, the Esquiline, and Quirinal Hills, on which early settlements had existed. Tradition has it that one of the kings, named Servius Tullius, built a wall to enclose the now largely extended city. This wall, called the agger, because it was built specially for purposes of defence, remained the wall of Rome till, late in the Empire, in the time of Aurelian (3rd cent. a.d.), a new and extended line of fortifications was built. Outside the Servian wall there was a trench 100 ft. broad and 30 ft. deep. Within this the wall proper was built of large rectangular blocks, and behind this wall there was an embankment 100 ft. wide and 30 ft. high, pierced by the channels of aqueducts. Portions of the wall have been discovered in thirty-seven different places, and it is possible to trace its entire course. Advantage was taken by the engineers of all the natural features, and where these were lacking, as on the northwest, the above plan was followed. Between the Capitoline and the Aventine the river was thought to afford sufficient protection. The whole circuit of the wall was about 5 miles, and it was pierced by 19 gates. Within there was a large area of vacant spaces, which were gradually built on later, and at the beginning of the Empire the city was not only congested with buildings, but large areas without the wall were also covered with houses. In the year b.c. 10, Augustus divided the city into 14 wards (regiones), and these were in their turn subdivided into smaller quarters (vici). Some of the principal buildings must be referred to. The Roman Forum, an open space measuring over 300 ft. in length and about 150 ft. in breadth, was the centre of political, legal, and commercial life. At one end was the rostra or platform, from which speeches were delivered to the public; at the other end were shops. On one side were the Curia or senate-house and the Basilica aemilia, a law-court; along the whole of the other side, with the Sacra Via between, stretched the Basilica Julia, a very large law-court, surrounded by two rows of square columns. Other important buildings in the immediate neighbourhood were the Temple of Janus, the Temple of Caesar, the Arch of Augustus, the Temple of Vesta, the Temple of Castor and Pollux, and the Temple of Saturn, where was the treasury, with the Tabularium (record-office) behind. On the top of the Capitoline Hill was the Capitolium or great temple dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, and on the Palatine Hill the principal residence of the Emperor, and the Temple of Apollo containing the public libraries, Greek and Latin. In the Imperial period four additional fora were built, devoted entirely to legal, literary, and religious purposes—the Forum Julium begun by Julius Caesar, the Forum Augustum built by Augustus, the Forum Transitorium completed by Nerva, and the Forum Trajani built by Trajan, the most splendid work of Imperial times. Considerations of space will not allow mention of the markets, circuses, theatres, baths, and gardens, which were characteristic features of the city and its life. The great roads which converged at Rome, and the aqueducts, can merely be mentioned. Various estimates of the population of Rome in the time of Christ have been given, ranging from 800,000 to 2,000,000: the latter seems more likely than the former. All nationalities in the Empire were represented, and the slave population was very large. Only a very brief sketch of the progress of the Romans can be given. Their history is curiously parallel to our own. They were a mixed race, and passed through the three stages, pastoral and agricultural, commercial, and imperial. The kernel of the race was Latin, but there was an early intermixture with Sabines and Etruscans, the latter, according to tradition, emigrants from Lydia, in Asia Minor. The Romans began as one of the members of the Latin league of which, having become presidents, they eventually became masters. After conquering Latium, they were inevitably brought into conflict with the other races of Italy. They rose again after the Gallic invasion and destruction of their city in 390, and by the time their trade interests brought them into conflict with the Carthaginians, about the middle of the 3rd cent. b.c., they were sovereign over most of Italy. The close of that century saw them possessors of Sicily and Sardinia, as well as conquerors over ‘Africa.’ About this time they began to interfere in Eastern politics, and the Macedonian wars and the conflicts which grew out of them resulted in the conquest of Macedonia and Greece in the same year as they finally became masters of ‘Africa.’ Ere this they had become possessed of most of Spain. The extension of Roman territory steadily continued, until in the time of Christ it included, roughly, Europe (except the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Russia), the whole of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the north-west of Africa. The internal history of the Roman people was no less remarkable. Great dangers from within were successfully surmounted. The conflict between the patricians and the dependent class lasted for hundreds of years. At first the Roman State was ruled by a king, with a body of patrician advisers. On the substitution of a dyarchy for a monarchy—a change effected not without difficulty—the new office, called the consulship, tenable for one year, was open only to the patrician class. Even from the earliest times there appears to have been a popular assembly, which played some part in legislation, but to define its powers or to state their exact relation to the powers of the king and senate is impossible. The consuls were elected by the citizen-army, which assembled in classes according to the property qualification of each citizen-soldier. The whole procedure of this assembly was in the hands of its patrician presidents, so that there was more of the semblance than the reality of power. Further, the plebeian had no appeal against the arbitrary authority of a chief magistrate. At the very beginning of the Republic the famous Valerian law was passed, that no magistrate should put a Roman citizen to death unless the sentence had been confirmed by the assembly of citizen-soldiers. This law was always regarded as the great charter of a Roman’s liberties, but at first it was difficult to enforce. The plebeians adopted on more than one occasion the plan of deserting the city for a time, and thus wrung concessions from the unwilling patricians. It was in this way that they succeeded in obtaining magistrates of their own, called tribunes, who were authorized to protect them against the consuls. The development of the powers of this magistracy had more to do with the progress of the Roman democracy than any other factor, and even in the Empire the most important of the Emperor’s statutory powers was his ‘tribunician authority.’ The tribunes convened assemblies of the plebeians, and carried resolutions of importance to that class. The resolutions of this body, which met by tribes, were later on to become the most powerful force in the State, having at a comparatively early period been declared to have the force of laws (b.c. 287). The first plebeian consul was elected in 367, about a century and a half after the traditional date of the establishment of the Republic, and by the end of the fourth century b.c. every office in the State was open to the plebeian class. The plebeians had won all they sought. The establishment of the equality of the orders was not the establishment of a real democracy. It was the beginning of a new struggle between the governing class, which was mainly plebeian in origin, and the mass of the people. The rapid expansion of the Roman territory, the necessity for the appointment of new magistrates to govern the new countries, and the establishment of a governing class alone possessed of the experience necessary for coping with foreign affairs, tended more and more to withdraw the real power from the popular assemblies and to concentrate it in the hands of the senate. By the theory of the constitution the popular assemblies had all the power, but in practice, between the middle of the 3rd and the beginning of the 1st cent. b.c., the senate was all-powerful. Circumstances also produced great distress among the people in general. In the absence of the farmer, serving in the army abroad, his farm was neglected, and trouble came upon him and his household. He had to borrow money, which in many cases he was unable to repay. His acres were bought by the rich, who worked them with slave labour, which was cheap owing to the enormous influx of captives seized in war. The small landholder disappeared, to join the hungry proletariat in Rome; and Italy became a country of large estates, which, in the words of Pliny, wrought her ruin. The attempts made by the Gracchi (b.c. 133–122) to redress this state of matters were rewarded with assassination. Periodically, to the end of the Republic, agrarian laws were brought forward, but were unable to check the evil. Even under the Empire it was only partially checked, and a large part of the Roman population was fed by the Emperors. A Roman ‘province’ consisted of the sphere of duty of a magistrate, and the word had not primarily a territorial application. The inhabitants were disarmed and taxed. The main lines under which a province was to be governed were set forth in a special law, generally drawn up by the senate. This law always took account of local conditions, such as the form of government already in existence before annexation, and the favour shown to Rome by particular cities. In some provinces certain States were free, such as Athens in the province of Achaia. It was the custom to send a body of commissioners to start the new constitution on its way. Some of these constitutions were modified as time went on, but others which had been established in Republican times were found still existing in Imperial times. Much was left to governors in the time of the Republic. Cruelty and rapacity were very common, but incompetence was unknown. The provincials could hardly get redress for injuries inflicted on them in Republican times. All the eloquence of a Cicero, engaged to plead the cause of the province of Sicily, availed only to remove Verres, the cause of the evil; the evil was not healed. During the last century of the Republic, Rome and Italy were torn by a long succession of ruinous civil wars. It said much for the machinery of the government that foreign enemies did not imperil its very existence. There was a longing among all the better citizens for an era of peace and prosperity, and it had become increasingly clear that this goal could be reached only under an Imperial rule. The need of the time was satisfied by Augustus, who ruled as autocrat under constitutional forms. The appearance of a republic was retained, but the reality was gone, and the appearance itself gradually disappeared also. For the city the Empire was a time of luxury and idleness, but the provinces entered upon an era of progressive prosperity. The Emperor was responsible for the government of all provinces where an army was necessary, and governed these by paid deputies of his own. The older and more settled provinces were governed by officials appointed by the senate, but the Emperor had his financial interests looked after by procurators of his own even in these. The provinces were now much more protected against the rapacity and cruelty of governors. The Emperors themselves stood for just as well as efficient administration, and most of them gave a noble example by strenuous devotion to administrative business. The resident Romans in any province consisted of (1) the officials connected with the government, who were generally changed annually; (2) members of the great financial companies, and lesser business men, whose interests kept them there,—the publicans of the Gospels were agents of the former; (3) citizens of coloniae (or military settlements), which were really parts of Rome itself set down in the provinces; (4) soldiers of the garrison and their officers. These formed the aristocracy of any city in which they lived. A fifth class of Roman citizens might be made out of those natives of the province who, for services rendered to the State, were individually gifted with the citizenship. It was a great honour, which was not conferred on all the inhabitants of the Empire till a.d. 212. The Romans have left a great legacy to the world. As administrators, lawyers, soldiers, engineers, architects, and builders, they have never been surpassed. In literature they depended mainly on the Greeks, but they claimed that satire was a native product. So with sculpture, music, painting, and medicine. In the arts they never attained more than a respectable standard, by imitating the Greeks, who could turn their hands to anything. Literature.—For an account of Rome itself, nothing surpasses the various works of R. Lanciani (all published by Macmillan): Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, Pagan and Christian Rome, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, The Destruction of Ancient Rome, and New Tales of Old Rome,—see also his chapters in W. Ramsay, A Manual of Roman Antiquities15 ^[1] (London, 1894); three excellent Maps, with Key, are in II. Kiepert and Ch. Huelsen, Formae Urbis Romae Antiquae: accedit nomenclator topographicus (Berlin, 1896). For the Forum, see Ch. Huelsen, The Roman Forum: its History and its Monuments (Rome, 1906). For the general history, Th. Mommsen, The History of Rome, 5 vols. (London; Macmillan) ^[2], The History of the Roman Provinces, 2 vols, ^[3]; H. F. Pelham, Outlines of Roman History (London, 1893, 4th edition, 1905), a masterly work; J. B. Bury, A History of the Roman Empire from, its Foundation to the Death of Marcus Aurelius (London, 1893, 1896, and later). On the political life, A. H. J. Greenidge, Roman Public Life (London, 1901). On the literature, W. S. Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, 2 vols. (London, 1891–92); and esp. M. Schanz, Geschichte der Romischen Litteratur, four parts (second half of part 4 to complete the work, as yet unpublished), (München; first three parts in second edition: publication began 1892). The above list constitutes only a small selection of the very best works on what appear to be the more important topics. Alex, Souter.

Augustinian philosopher and theologion, called Doctor fundatissimus, born Rome, Italy, c.1247;died Avignon, France, 1316. He studied under Thomas Aquinas at Paris, and was the first Augustinian to teach in that university. Though Honorius IV asked him to retract publicly certain opinions, the general chapter of the Augustinians ordered all its members to accept and defend all his teachings. In 1292 he was elected superior general. In 1295 he was named Archbishop of Bourges by Boniface VIII, and, despite the protests of the French nobles, his appointment was approved by Philip IV, his former pupil. Colonna favored Boniface VIII in his struggle with Philip IV, and may have written the famous Bull "Unam Sanctam." His theological followers were known as the Ægidian School. One of his most important writings was the treatise composed for his royal pupil on the conduct of rulers.

Virgin, martyr. Born Rome; died there, c304Details of her martyrdom vary, but it is generally agreed that she was about twelve years of age and that she was tortured by fire or decapitated. Her virginity and heroism are renowned, and her name occurs in the prayer "Nobis quoque peccatoribus," in the Canon of the Mass. The catacombs of Saint Agnes on the Via Nomentana grew up around her crypt there, on a small piece of property owned by her family. Two lambs blessed on her feast supply part of the wool of the pallia. Patron of Children of Mary. Emblems: lamb, butcher. Feast, Roman Calendar, January 21, and a second, January 28,.

1. Occasion.-The Epistle of Clement itself supplies complete information as to the circumstances under which it was written. Dissension had arisen within the Christian community at Corinth, and the Church was torn asunder. The original ground of contention is not mentioned, but the course of the strife is clearly indicated. A small but powerful party of malcontents (i. 1, xlvii. 6) had used their influence to secure the deposition of certain presbyters, men duly appointed according to apostolic regulations, who were, moreover, of blameless reputation and unfailing zeal in the performance of their duties (xliv. 3). A fierce controversy was raging, and the Corinthian Church, hitherto renowned for its virtues, especially such as are the outcome of brotherly love (i. 2-ii.), had become a stumbling-block instead of an example to the world (xlvii. 7). Once before, the Church of Corinth had shown the same spirit of faction (1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 1:12). History was now repeating itself, but the latter case was much worse than the former. Then, the contending parties had at least claimed to be following the lead of apostolic men, but now the main body of the Church was following ‘one or two’ contumacious persons in rebellion against their lawful rulers (xlvii.). The news of this state of things was brought to Rome. How it came it is impossible to say. Ill news travels apace, and Rome is within easy reach of Corinth. It seems clear that no direct appeal was made to Rome by either contesting party. Yet in the ordinary course of things the Roman Church would soon hear of the Corinthian trouble, for communication seems to have been fairly frequent between the principal Christian communities in the early days (note the stress laid on the duty of hospitality, i, x, xi, xii, xxxv.). At any rate the Christians at Rome heard of the Corinthian dissension while it was still at its height (xlvi. 9). When the tidings first came, they themselves were suffering under the stress of external persecution (i. 1, vii. 1), but as soon as the storm had abated, a letter was written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth, expressing the sorrow which the Corinthian feud had caused to the Christians at Rome, and admonishing the Corinthians to remember the primary duty of φιλαδελφία and bring their strife to an end. That Epistle has survived to the present day. It is known as ‘the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.’ 2. Date and authorship (1) Date.-The terminus a quo for the dating of the Epistle is fixed by its reference to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul (v. 4, 6), and its use of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xxxvi, xliii.). Even if we accept the earliest possible dates for the death of the apostles and for the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Clement cannot have been written before a.d. 70. The terminus ad quem is also fixed by the fact that Clement’s Epistle was indubitably used by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. ^[1] vol. i. p. 149ff.). If Lightfoot be correct-as seems most probable-in dating Polycarp’s letter c. ^[2] a.d. 110 (St. Ign. and St. Polyc. 2 ^[3], vol. i. p. 428ff.), the date of Clement’s Epistle must fall between the years a.d. 70 and a.d. 110. Fortunately it is possible to reduce these limits very considerably. The Epistle contains distinct allusions to two serious persecutions already suffered by the Church at Rome. During the former of these, we are told, ‘women suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae,’ and ‘a vast multitude of the elect’ endured ‘many indignities and tortures’ before ‘they reached the goal in the race of faith and received a noble reward’ (vi. 1, 2). When the Epistle was written this persecution was a matter of past history, but its victims are still spoken of as ‘those champions who lived very near to our own time’ and ‘the noble examples which belong to our generation’ (τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς … τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα, v. 1). The second persecution was still in progress when the news of the Corinthian schism was brought to Rome. The Epistle opens with an apology for the delay in writing which has been caused by ‘the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which have befallen us’ (τὰς αἰφνιδίους καὶ ἐπαλλήλους γενομένας ἡμῖν συμφορὰς καὶ περιπτώσεις, i. 1). The writer’s words suggest that the method of attack adopted in the later persecution was different from that of the earlier one. That the two are not to be identified is made plain in vii. 1, where a clear distinction is drawn between the martyrs of an earlier date and ‘us’ who ‘are in the same lists,’ whom ‘the same contest awaits.’ Now it is a well-established fact that during the 1st cent. a.d. the Roman Church suffered two, and only two, serious persecutions. The first was that of Nero (circa, about a.d. 64), in the course of which, according to an ancient tradition, St. Paul lost his life. The second was that of Domitian. Nero’s persecution was a savage onslaught on all Christians indiscriminately; that of Domitian took the form of sharp intermittent attacks aimed at individuals. In fact, the difference between the two was precisely the difference between the two persecutions mentioned in the Epistle of Clement. It seems, therefore, a safe conclusion that the references of the Epistle are to the persecutions of Nero and Domitian, and that the Epistle was written either just before or just after the termination of the latter of the two, i.e. c. ^[2] a.d. 95-96. This date suits admirably the other indications of time contained in the Epistle, all of which point towards the close of the 1st cent. a.d. An earlier date is precluded by the following facts: (a) the Church of Corinth is already called ἀρχαία (xlvii. 6); (b) presbyters are mentioned who have succeeded successors of the apostles (xliv. 3); (c) the language used of the Roman envoys ‘who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably’ (lxiii. 3) seems to imply that a generation has almost passed since the Church of Rome was founded. On the other hand, the Epistle cannot have been written later than the end of the century, because (a) St. Peter and St. Paul are included amongst the ‘examples of our own generation’ (v. 1); (b) ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are still regarded as interchangeable terms (xliv. 4, 5), whereas very early in the 2nd cent. they were used to denote distinct offices (Ign. Epp., passim). Finally, external evidence of an early and reliable kind (a) connects the Epistle with the episcopate of Clement, third bishop of Rome, and (b) places his episcopate in the last decade of the 1st cent. a.d. (Hegesippus, ap. Eus. HE ^[5] iv. 22; Dion. Cor. ap. Eus. HE ^[5] iv. 23; Iren. adv. Haer. III. iii. 3). In view of this accumulation of evidence, it is impossible to doubt that the Epistle of Clement was written about a.d. 95-96. (2) Authorship.-The Epistle itself claims to be the letter not of an individual but of a community. The author’s name is nowhere mentioned. Nor indeed do we find in the statements of Hegesippus, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenaeus, the three earliest writers who connect the Epistle with the name of Clement, any definite assertion that Clement was the author. Eusebius, to whom we owe our knowledge of Hegesippus, does indeed declare that that writer ‘makes some remarks concerning the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’ (HE ^[5] iv. 22), but the title here given to the letter is due to the historian and not to Hegesippus, whose own words have unfortunately not been preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, c. ^[2] a.d. 170 (ap. Eus. HE ^[5] iv. 23), speaks of τὴν πρότεραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (sc. ἐπιστολήν), but his statement is ambiguous. διὰ Κλήμεντος might mean that Clement was the author, the amanuensis, or even the bearer of the Epistle. Similarly the language of Irenaeus (circa, about a.d. 180) is indefinite as to the actual authorship of the letter: ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος … ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοιν (adv. Haer. III. iii. 3). Yet it must be admitted that there is nothing in the language of any of these three writers to exclude the possibility of believing that they regarded Clement as the author of the Epistle. The absence of more explicit statement on the subject is probably due to the fact that they looked upon the letter as the utterance of the whole Roman Church rather than of one man. The Epistle is first definitely ascribed to Clement of Rome in the writings of his namesake of Alexandria (circa, about a.d. 200), who, though his usage is not quite uniform, on at least four occasions speaks of Clement as the author (Strom. i. 7, iv. 17-19, v. 12, vi. 8). All later writers are unanimous in accepting this opinion (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 160ff.). It is unreasonable to doubt that they are justified in doing so. That Clement was head of the Roman community at the time of the Corinthian schism is as well attested as any fact of early Church history, and as such he would be the natural mouthpiece of the Church of Rome in its communications with a sister community. At any rate, this function is attributed to him by the writer of ‘Hermas’ (πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται, Vis. II. iv. 3), and ‘Hermas’ may have been written as early as a.d. 110-125 (V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, pt. i. pp. 34-41). Again, however worthless as historical documents the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies may be, they at least bear witness to the fact that, by the middle of the 2nd cent. a.d., Clement was regarded as an author. It is difficult to understand what could have given rise to that opinion except the belief that he was the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians. Certainly at that date no other writings of importance were attributed to him. But the real value of the Epistle depends not so much on its authorship as on its date, which is sufficiently indicated by purely internal evidence. 3. Contents Introductory.-(a) Opening salutation from ‘the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth.’ (b) Apology for apparent lack of interest in the Corinthian trouble. The Romans’ previous silence due to the ‘sudden and repeated calamities’ which have befallen them. (1) The Corinthian trouble-its cause and the remedy.-Now at last we have an opportunity of speaking our mind about ‘the detestable and unholy sedition which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled’ till the once honoured name of the Church of Corinth is now greatly reviled (i. 1). For indeed the Church of Corinth has hitherto been a model of Christian virtues, especially of sobriety in all things, of self-sacrifice and moderation (i. 2-ii.). But, like Israel of old, you have been spoiled by your good progress. Excellence has given way to jealousy and envy (iii.). Envy and ill-will always result in suffering. So much we may learn from the stories of Cain, of Jacob, of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, of Dathan and Abiram, and of David (iv.). Or think of those who suffered martyrdom ‘nearest our own time’-of Peter and Paul and the multitude of others (v, vi.). These examples ought to warn us who have to face the same expression of the world’s envy to be free from envy ourselves. If we have not kept ourselves free from it, then let us use the ‘grace of repentance’ which Christ’s death won for man (vii.), even as the men of old repented at the preaching of Noah and of Jonah (vii. 5ff.). The Holy Spirit Himself, through the prophets, calls men to repentance (viii.). Let us be obedient to His call, following the example of Enoch and Noah (ix.). Obedience to God brought blessings upon Abraham (x.); faith and care for others saved Lot from the fate of Sodom (xi.), and Rahab from the fate of Jericho (xii.). ‘Arrogance and conceit and folly and anger’ must be laid aside. The promises of the Scriptures and of the Lord Jesus are for the humble-minded (xiii, xiv.), who are genuinely so (xv.). What an example of humility was set by Christ Himself (xvi.) and by the saints of old-Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job, Moses (xvii.), and David (xviii.)! Self-seeking and discord are contrary to the will of the Creator (xix.); the harmony of the natural world proves His own long-suffering and love of settled order (xx.). Let us therefore act as befits the servants of such a Master, for He reads the secrets of all hearts. Let us reverence rulers, honour elders, and train our families to do the same (xxi.); for Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and the Father both commend the single-hearted and condemn such as are double-minded (xxii, xxiii.). The Lord will come quickly (xxiii.). (2) The resurrection of the body. Faith and works the means by which the elect obtain this and the other blessings of God.-Let us have no doubt about the resurrection of the dead. Life out of death is the very law of Nature. Day grows out of night, the plant from the death of the seed (xxiv.), the phœnix from its parent’s ashes (xxv.). In the Scriptures God has promised a resurrection. His promise and His power are alike sufficient, for He is almighty and cannot lie. Therefore let our souls be bound to Him with this hope (xxvi-xxviii.). We must approach Him in holiness of soul, for we are His ‘elect,’ His ‘special portion’ (xxix.); as such we must put away all lust, strife, contention, and pride. ‘Boldness and arrogance and daring are for them that are accursed of God; but forbearance and humility and gentleness are with them that are blessed of God’ (xxx.). This, then, is how the blessing of God is obtained. We see it in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (xxxi.). They were blessed ‘not through themselves, in their own works or righteous doing,’ but because they accepted the will of God, i.e. through faith. So we are justified by faith (xxxii.). Yet we must never be slack in works. Does not the Creator rejoice to work unceasingly? We must follow His example, for we are made in His image (xxxiii.). We must imitate the diligence of the angels, if we would win the promises of God (xxxiv.). How blessed and marvellous are the gifts which God prepares for them that patiently await Him! If we would enjoy them, we must first have done with all bitterness and strife, vainglory and inhospitality, which are hateful to Him (xxxv.). Jesus Christ, ‘the Guardian and Helper of our weakness,’ will aid us in our efforts, and He is mightier than any angel (xxxvi.). (3) Discipline is indispensable in a corporate society: provision made for this in the Mosaic Law and in the Divinely appointed ministry of the Church.-We are Christ’s soldiers (στρατευσώμεθα, xxxvii. 1): soldiers must be under discipline, each in his own rank. Look at the soldiers in the Roman army; think of the limbs in a human body; ‘all the members conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be saved’ (xxxvii.). So the members of the Christian body must perform each his own function for the common weal (xxxviii.). Only ‘senseless and stupid and foolish and ignorant men ‘seek power and exaltation, forgetting the utter nothingness of man, and the condemnation of the Scriptures for such as themselves (xxxix.). Regard for order and decency is Divinely taught in the Mosaic Law, which expressly prescribes how, when, and by whom each of its rites shall be performed, every man having his own appointed place, whether high priest, priest, Levite, or layman (xl.). So we, who are under the Christian Law, must be content to perform the function which is appointed for us (xli.). The Christian ministry is a Divinely appointed order. Jesus Christ was sent forth from God, and Himself sent forth the apostles. They, in turn, when they had preached in town and country, appointed such of their converts as were approved by the Spirit, to be ‘bishops and deacons unto them that should believe’ (xlii.). In this they followed the example of Moses, who appointed a succession of priests, and to prevent all future dispute, confirmed the appointment of Aaron’s line by the miracle of the budding rod (xliii.). The apostles, too, were Divinely warned that strife would arise over the bishop’s office. They therefore provided for a regular succession of the ministry from generation to generation (xliv. 1, 2). (4) The Corinthians have disobeyed not only a specific ordinance of God, but also the fundamental Christian law of love. May they speedily repent.-You have sinned grievously in thrusting from their office men who were duly appointed according to the apostles’ directions, and have faithfully discharged the duties of a bishop (xliv. 3-6). It is monstrous that God’s officers should be persecuted by those who profess to be God’s servants. Read your Bible, and you will learn that when righteous men have suffered persecution-e.g. Daniel and the three Holy Children-they have suffered at the hands of the ungodly (xlv.). Surely you ought to be found on the side of the righteous rather than of the persecutors. We worship one God. We are one body in Christ, we have one spirit of grace. How can you bear such strife if you remember that we are members one of another? Remember what Jesus our Lord said concerning those who cause offence as you have done (xlvi.). St. Paul rebuked you for the same fault, but things are worse now. Then at least you professed to follow apostles or apostolic men, but now ‘the steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters’ (xlvii.). Let us have done with such feuds, and in penitence pray God to restore our former harmony (xlviii.). Love is all-powerful: love, His own attribute, is acceptable to God: seek love, and you shall be saved (xlix. 1). Love is the only ground on which we can hope for God’s forgiveness. Let us therefore-and especially those who have caused strife-confess our offences and not harden our hearts as Pharaoh did, lest like Pharaoh we perish (li.). God asks nothing of man but contrition, prayer, and praise (lii.). Remember how Moses fasted and prayed forty days on the mountain, offering his life for the life of his people (liii.). Let those of you who are the occasion of strife, copy his self-effacement (liv.), and follow the examples of those noble heathens-rulers and citizens, even women-who over and over again in the course of history have been willing to give up all for the good of their nation (lv.). Let us intercede for one another. Let us be ready to give and to receive admonition. In God’s hands, chastisement is an instrument of mercy (lvi.). You especially, who first stirred up the strife, be first to repent-‘submit yourselves unto the presbyters, and receive chastisement unto repentance.’ The Scriptures contain many threats against the stubborn and impenitent (lvii.). Let us by obedience escape them, for they who obey God’s will shall be saved (lviii.). ‘But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us … they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin’ (lix.). (5) Prayer for all mankind: final admonition and benediction.-We pray that God will keep His elect intact. We pray for inward light, for all who need, for the Gentiles’ conversion, for pardon and cleansing, for peace and concord, for deliverance from those who hate us wrongfully, for the grace of obedience to temporal authority, for earthly rulers, that they may govern in accordance with God’s will in peace and gentleness. We offer our praises to the Almighty Father ‘through the High Priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ’ (lix-lxi.). We have said enough about the Christian life; about faith, repentance, love, temperance, sobriety, patience, righteousness, truth, longsuffering. We have spoken gladly, knowing that we spoke to men who have studied the oracles of God (lxii.). Follow the example of the Fathers; submit yourselves to authority. You will give us great joy if you cease from strife. With the letter we have sent faithful and prudent men who shall be witnesses between us (lxiii.). May God endue with all virtues those who call on His name through Jesus Christ our High Priest and Guardian (lxiv.). We commend Claudius Ephebus, and Valerius Bito, who, with Fortunatus also, are the bearers of this letter. Send them back speedily with good news. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and all men. 4. Teaching.-The object of the Epistle was strictly practical. It is therefore unreasonable to expect to find in it precise definitions of Christian doctrine. Yet, in enforcing his practical lesson, the writer alludes to the main articles of the faith as he had learned it, and these incidental allusions are historically the more valuable, because they represent not the belief of one man but the tradition of a community. The tradition, which lies behind the Epistle, is above all things catholic, in its recognition of the many-sidedness of Christian truth. It embraces almost every type of apostolic teaching which is expressed in the Epistles of the NT-the type of St. James no less than of St. Paul, of St. Peter as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The one element which is lacking is the mysticism of St. John, probably because the Johannine writings were not yet in existence (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 95ff.). At the same time it must be admitted that the Epistle betrays a certain failure to grasp the full meaning of the more profound doctrines of the NT. This is especially evident in its treatment of the Pauline idea of justification by faith. To St. Paul faith is the mainspring of the Christian life, the source of all Christian virtues. To the writer of the Epistle, faith is nothing more than one amongst many virtues. He is conscious of no incongruity in placing ‘faith’ and ‘hospitality’ side by side as equal conditions of salvation (xii. 1; cf. Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 397). (1) Doctrine of God.-The terms in which the Epistle speaks of God are unmistakably borrowed from the language of the OT and the Jewish synagogue. God is ‘the Almighty,’ ‘the all-seeing Master’ (Leviticus 6), ‘the Creator and Master of the universe’ (xxxiii. 2), ‘the Father of the ages, the All-holy One’ (xxxv. 3); ‘the Father and Maker of the whole world’ (xix. 2; cf. Ix. and lxii.); ‘the King of the ages’ (lxi. 2); ‘He that embraceth the whole universe’ (xxviii. 4). His unceasing activity in the natural world displays both His beneficence and His love of harmony (xx, xxxii.). Amongst men He is made known as ‘the Creator and Overseer … the Benefactor of all spirits and the God of all flesh’ (lix. 3). To the elect He is revealed as a ‘gentle and compassionate Father’ (xxix. 1), ‘the champion and protector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent Name’ (xlv. 7). So much might have been said by a conscientious Jew; but in two passages at least, the language of the Epistle passes beyond the mere monotheism of Judaism: ‘Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us?’ (xlvi. 6); ‘as God liveth and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect …’ (lviii. 2). The simple and natural way in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are here linked with the Father as equal objects of Christian faith and hope is quite inexplicable unless the writer was convinced of their essential Divinity and essential equality with the Father. (2) Christology.-A clear allusion to the pre-existence of Christ is contained in the statement that He speaks through the Holy Spirit in the OT Scriptures (xxii. 1). A similar reference is probably to be found in the words ‘Jesus Christ was sent forth from God’ (xlii. 1). He is never actually called God,* ^[10] but His Divinity is implied when He is described as ‘the sceptre of the majesty of God’ (xvi. 2), who showed us ‘as in a mirror’ the very ‘face’ of God (xxxvi. 2). But most frequently the Epistle speaks of Christ in His relation to mankind. He came to earth ‘to instruct, to sanctify, to honour us’ (lix. 3), to be our pattern of lowliness (xvi.). Yet He was no mere example to men. He shed His blood for our salvation (vii. 4, xii. 7, xxi. 6), and ‘gave His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives’ (xlix. 6). By His death He ‘won for the whole world the grace of repentance’ (vii. 3). God raised Him from the dead, and we shall one day share His resurrection (xxiv. 1). Meanwhile He is ‘the High Priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness’ (xxxvi. 1; cf. lxi. 3, lxiv.). ‘Through Him we taste the immortal knowledge’ (xxxvi. 2), ‘the full knowledge of the glory of God’s Name’ (lix. 2). Through Him we have our access to the Father (xx. 11, lxi. 3, lxiv.). (3) The Holy Spirit.-In times past the Holy Spirit inspired the message of the prophets (viii. 1, xlv. 1). In the present He is a living power poured out upon the Church (xlvi. 6). His indwelling was the source of the manifold virtues which had formerly distinguished the Church of Corinth (ii. 3). The writer of the Epistle claims that his own words were written ‘through the Holy Spirit’ (τοῖς ὑφʼ ἠμῶν γεγραμμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, lxiii. 2). (4) Justification by faith and works.-Salvation was won for man by the blood of Christ (vii. 4, xii. 7, etc.). On man’s part the necessary condition of salvation is ‘faith’ (xxxii. 4). Faith must find expression in good works (xxxiii.), for ‘we are justified by works and not by words’ (xxx. 3). By ‘faith and hospitality’ Rahab was saved (xii. 1). Abraham was blessed ‘because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith’ (xxxi. 2). ‘So we, having been called through His (sc. the Father’s) will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works … but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning’ (xxxii. 4). Yet we must ‘hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work’ (xxxiii. 1), even as the Creator maintains without ceasing His beneficent activity. In this way the writer of the Epistle co-ordinates the divergent language of St. Paul and St. James on the question of faith and works. Yet he certainly fails to rise to the full meaning of faith as it was understood by St. Paul. (5) The resurrection of the dead.-The truth of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is dwelt upon at considerable length (xxiv-xxvi.). In proof of it, analogies are quoted from the natural world. The sequence of night and day, the growth of the plant from the death of the seed, and the story of the phœnix are all pressed into service. But the final argument is the promise of God in the Scripture, and the precedent of the Resurrection of Christ who is ‘the first-fruits’ of the harvest of the dead. The passage dealing with the Resurrection interrupts the argument of the Epistle, and it is not quite evident why the subject is introduced at all. It does not seem to have had any connexion with the Corinthian disagreement. Possibly it may have been suggested to the writer by a recent perusal of 1 Corinthians 15 (see xl

Anastasius I. , bp. of Rome, was consecrated A.D. 398 ("Honorio IV. et Eutychiano coss." Prosp. Aq. Chron. ), and died in April, 402 (Anast. Bibl. vol. i. p. 62). According to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, he put an end to an unseemly strife between the priests and deacons of his church, by enacting that priests as well as deacons should stand bowed ("curvi starent") at the reading of the Gospels. Jerome calls him a "vir insignis," taken from the evil to come, i.e. dying before the sack of Rome by Goths, A.D. 410. One letter by Anastasius is extant. Rufinus wrote to him shortly after his consecration (not later than A.D. 400, Constant. Epp. Pont. Rom. p. 714) to defend himself against the charge of complicity in the heresy ascribed to Origen. Anastasius replied (see Constant. l.c. ) in a tone which, dealing leniently with Rufinus, explicitly condemned Origen. Nine other letters are referred to:—(1–5) To Paulinus, bp. of Nola (Paul. Nol. Ep. 20). (6) To Anysius, bp. of Thessalonica, giving him jurisdiction over Illyria; referred to by Innocent I., in his first letter (Constant.). (7) To Johannes, bp. of Jerusalem. (8) To African bishops who had sent him an embassy to complain of the low state of their clergy. (9) Contra Rufinum, an epistle sent ad Orientem (Hieron. Apol. lib. 3). ^[1]

Anastasius II. , bp. of Rome, succeeded Gelasius I. in Nov. 496 (Clinton's Fasti Romani , pp. 536, 713). The month after his accession Clovis was baptized, and the new Pope wrote congratulating him on his conversion. Anastasius has left a name of ill-odour in the Western church; attributable to his having taken a different line from his predecessors with regard to the Eastern church. Felix III. had excommunicated Acacius of Constantinople, professedly on account of his communicating with heretics, but really because Zeno's Henoticon , which he had sanctioned, gave the church of Constantinople a primacy in the East which the see of Rome could not tolerate. Gelasius I. had followed closely in the steps of Felix. But Anastasius, in the year of his accession, sent two bishops, Germanus of Capua and Cresconius of Todi, (Baronius) to Constantinople, with a proposal that Acacius's name, instead of being expunged from the roll of patriarchs of Constantinople as Gelasius had proposed, should be left upon the diptychs, and no more be said upon the subject. This proposal, in the very spirit of the Henoticon, gave lasting offence to the Western church, and it excites no surprise that he was charged with communicating secretly with Photinus, a deacon of Thessalonica who held with Acacius; and of wishing to heal the breach between the East and West—for so it seems best to interpret the words of Anastasius Bibliothecarius—"voluit revocare Acacium" (vol. i. p. 83). Anastasius died in Nov. 498. He was still remembered as the traitor who would have reversed the excommunication of Acacius; and Dante finds him suffering in hell the punishment of one whom "Fotino" seduced from the right way (Dante, Inf. xi. 8, 9). Two epistles by him are extant: one informing the emperor Anastasius of his accession (Mansi, viii. p. 188); the other to Clovis as above (ib. p. 193). ^[1]

Anicetus , bp. of Rome, stated in Eusebius's History (iv. 11) and by Irenaeus ( Adv. omn. Haer. iii. 3, 3) to have succeeded Pius. As to the date of his pontificate, see Lightfoot's elaborate discussion in Apost. Fathers (part i. vol. i. pp. 201–345). As Polycarp visited him at Rome, and as Polycarp's death has been fixed by recent criticism in 155, Lightfoot says that "the latest possible date for the accession of Anicetus is 154," and if he sat for eleven years, as is said, his death would be in 165. Anastasius Bibliothecarius singles him out as the pope who prescribed the tonsure for the clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); and a forged letter upon this subject is given by Isidorus Mercator (Constant. p. 75). But the single reliable fact recorded of him has reference to the early Paschal controversy (Eus. H. E. iv. 24). He, like his four predecessors, did not allow the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage within their own church, but communicated as freely as before with other churches which did allow it. Polycarp visited Rome, hoping to persuade Anicetus to adopt the Quartodeciman practice. But Anicetus was firm, even against the age and saintliness of Polycarp. As a mark of personal respect, he allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in Rome; but they parted without agreement, though with mutual cordiality. We are told that Anicetus was buried in the Calixtine cemetery on April 20. ^[1]

Fabianus (1) (called by the Greeks and in the Liberian Catalogue Fabius , by Eutychius and in the Alexandrian Chronicle Flavianus ), bp. of Rome from early in Feb. 236 to Jan. 20, 250, and a martyr. Eusebius relates that, the brethren being assembled in the church to choose a successor to Anteros, Fabianus, a layman lately come from the country, being indicated as the chosen of Heaven by a dove settling on his head, the people acclaimed him as worthy and placed him on the episcopal throne (H. E. vi. 29). That the choice proved a good one is witnessed by Cyprian, who rejoices that "his honourable consummation had corresponded to the integrity of his administration" ( Ep. 39, cf. 30). In the Liberian Catalogue (a.d. 354) he is said to have divided the regions of the city among the deacons, and to have been martyred Jan. 20, 250. In the Felician Catalogue (a.d. 530) and in later editions of the Liber Pontificalis it is added that he made also seven subdeacons to superintend the seven notaries appointed to record faithfully the acts of the martyrs; also that he caused to be brought to Rome by sea the body of Pontianus (the predecessor of his predecessor Anteros), martyred in Sardinia, and buried it in the cemetery of Callixtus on the Appian Way; in which cemetery he too was buried. It is remarkable that, though the Roman calendar designates all the first 30 bishops of Rome except two as saints and martyrs, Fabianus is the first, except Telesphorus and Pontianus, whose martyrdom rests on any good authority (cf. also Eus. H. E. vi. 39; Hieron. de Ill. Vir. c. 54; Cypr. Epp. 39, 30). Fabianus was among the earliest victims of the Decian persecution. Fragments of a slab bearing the inscription ΦΑΒΙΑΝΟC + ΕΠΙ + ΜΡ (Fabianus episcopus martyr), together with others inscribed with the names of Anteros, Lucius, and Eutychianus, Roman bishops of the same period, have been found in what is called the papal crypt of the cemetery of Callixtus, thus attesting the accounts given of the place of his burial ( Roma Sotterranea , by Northcote and Brownlow). Fabianus is specially named by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) as one among many bishops to whom Origen wrote in defence of his own orthodoxy. Cyprian mentions him ( Ep. 59) as having, with Donatus bp. of Carthage, written a letter severely censuring one Privatus, an heretical bp. of Lambaesa in Numidia, who had been condemned by a synod of 90 bishops at Lambaesa for "many and grievous faults." Nothing more is known about Fabianus with certainty. Great doubt rests on the story (accepted by Andreas du Chesne, in Vit. Pontif. , and in the main by the Bollandists) of his having been the founder of the seven Gallic churches of Toulouse, Arles, Tours, Paris, Narbonne, Clermont, Limoges; to which he is said to have sent respectively Saturninus, Trophimus, Gratianus, Dionysius, Paulus, Astremonius, and Martialis as missionary bishops. The story is absent from early records, and is disputable also on other grounds. Still more improbable is the story, accepted by the Bollandists and Baronius, and resting mainly on the authority of the Acts of St. Pontius, that the emperor Philip and his son became Christians, and were baptized by Fabianus. ^[1] Three spurious decretals are attributed to Fabianus. There are also ten decreta assigned to him by Gratian and others, on matters of discipline. ^[2]

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 (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 (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]

Florinus (1) , for some time in the latter half of the 2nd cent. a presbyter at Rome, deprived for falling into heresy. He is known from two notices (v. 15, 20) in Eusebius, taken from writings of Irenaeus against Florinus. One is an interesting fragment of a letter to Florinus, in which Irenaeus records his youthful recollections of Polycarp, representing how that bishop, whose good opinion Florinus had once been anxious to gain, would have been shocked at his present opinions. The fragment contains unmistakable internal evidence of genuineness. The title of the letter to Florinus was On Monarchy, or that God is not the Author of Evil , and Eusebius remarks that Florinus seems to have maintained the opposite opinion. Later writers have naturally followed the report of Eusebius. Philaster (79) refers to an unnamed heretic, who taught that things which God made were in their own nature evil. Augustine (66) calls the anonymous heretic Florinus and, with little probability, makes him the founder of a sect of Floriniani. He probably arrived at this result by combining the notice in Eusebius with Philaster's mention in another place of Floriani. The work of Irenaeus which we possess does not mention Florinus, and has no trace of the letter, nor does Tertullian, in dealing with the same subject, employ the letter to Florinus. If Florinus ever in a heretical sense made God the author of evil, his errors afterwards took the opposite direction, and he became a Valentinian. In reply to him Irenaeus composed his work On the Ogdoad . If the controversy of Irenaeus with Florinus was earlier than the publication of the treatise on heresies, we should expect some trace of it therein; and the fact that, after the publication of a treatise dealing so fully with Valentinianism, a separate treatise on the Ogdoad was necessary, may point to the controversy having arisen later. In favour of the later date is also the fact that there is extant a Syriac fragment (Harvey, ii. 457), purporting to be an extract from a letter of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome concerning Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of the error of Valentinus, and had published an abominable book. Florinus is not named by Epiphanius, Philaster, or Pseudo-Tertullian who has so many notices of Roman heretics; and it is likely, therefore, that he was not named in the earlier work of Hippolytus, nor in the lectures of Irenaeus, on which that work was founded; he is not named in the later work of Hippolytus, nor by Tertullian. This silence is not easily explained if either Florinus or any school of Floriniani were any source of danger after his exposure by Irenaeus. (cf. Zahn, Forschungen , iv. 233-308). ^[1]

Gelasius (1) I., bp. of Rome after Felix III. (or II.) from Mar 492 to Nov. 496, during about 4½ years. At the time of his accession the schism between the Western and Eastern churches, which had begun under his predecessor, had lasted more than 7 years. Its occasion had been the excommunication, by pope Felix, of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, for supporting and communicating with Peter Mongus, the once Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, who had, however, satisfied Acacius by subscribing the Henoticon, and afterwards the Nicene creed. There had been other grounds of complaint against Acacius, notably his disregard of the authority of the Roman see; but the above had been the original cause of quarrel. ^[1] Acacias being now dead, the dispute concerned only the retention of his name in the diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had 'demanded its erasure as a condition of intercommunion with his successors, but they had refused to comply. The patriarch of Constantinople was now Euphemius; the emperor Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote a respectful letter to the emperor, who did not reply. To Euphemius the new pope did not write, as was usual, to inform him of his accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice to Gelasius, expressing a strong desire for reconciliation between the churches, and a hope that Gelasius would, through condescension and a spirit of charity, be able to restore concord. He insisted that Acacias himself had been no heretic, and that before he communicated with Peter Mongus the latter had been purged of heresy. He asked by what synodical authority Acacias had been condemned; and alleged that the people of Constantinople would never allow his name to be erased; but suggested that the pope might send an embassy to Constantinople to treat on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, couched in a tone of imperious humility, utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops as a condescension rather than an obligation, and one certainly not due to such as chose to cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with contempt the plea of the determined attitude of the people of Constantinople. The shepherd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the flock control the shepherd. The letter thus asserts in no measured terms the supremacy of the see of Rome, and the necessity of submitting to it. "We shall come," he concludes, "brother Euphemius, without doubt to that tremendous tribunal of Christ, with those standing round by whom the faith has been defended. There it will be proved whether the glorious confession of St. Peter has left anything short for the salvation of those given to him to rule, or whether there has been rebellious and pernicious obstinacy in those who were unwilling to obey him." In 493 Gelasius wrote a long letter to the Eastern bishops. Its main drift was to justify the excommunication of Acacias by asserting that he had exceeded his powers in absolving Peter Mongus without the authority of the Roman see, and plainly asserts the supremacy of the apostolic see over the whole church as due to the original commission of Christ to St. Peter, and as having always existed prior to, and independent of, all synods and canons. He speaks of "the apostolical judgment, which the voice of Christ, the tradition of the elders, and the authority of canons had supported, that it should itself always determine questions throughout the church." As to the possibility of Acacius being absolved now, having died excommunicate, he says that Christ Himself, Who raised the dead, is never said to have absolved those who died in error, and that even to St. Peter it was on earth only that the power of binding and loosing had been given. Such a tone was not calculated to conciliate. The name of Gelasius himself was therefore removed from the diptychs of the Constantinopolitan church. Gelasius wrote a long letter to the emperor in a similar vein, and exhorted him to use his temporal power to control his people in spiritual as well as mundane matters. This letter is noteworthy as containing a distinct expression of the view taken by Gelasius of the relations between the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions. Each he regards as separate and supreme in its own sphere. As in secular things priests are bound to obey princes, so in spiritual things all the faithful, including princes, ought to submit their hearts to priests; and, if to priests generally, much more to the prelate of that see which even supreme Divinity has willed should be over all priests, and to which the subsequent piety of the general church has perpetually accorded such pre-eminence. Gelasius also wrote on the same subjects to the bishops of various provinces, including those of East Illyricum and Dardania. In his address to the last he enlarges on its being the function of the Roman see, not only to carry out the decisions of synods, but even to give to such decisions their whole authority. Nay, the purpose of synods is spoken of as being simply to express the assent of the church at large to what the pope had already decreed and what was therefore already binding. This, he says, had been the case in the instance of the council of Chalcedon. Further, instances are alleged of popes having on their own mere authority reversed the decisions of synods, absolved those whom synods had condemned, and condemned those whom synods had absolved. The cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are cited as examples. Lastly, any claim of Constantinople (contemptuously spoken of as in the diocese of Heraclea) to be exempt from the judgment of "the first see" is put aside as absurd, since "the power of a secular kingdom is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities another." In 495 Gelasius convened a synod of 46 bishops at Rome to absolve and restore to his see Misenus of Cumae, one of the bishops sent by pope Felix to Constantinople in the affair of Acacius, who had been then won over, and in consequence excommunicated. Before receiving absolution this prelate was required to declare that he "condemned, anathematized, abhorred, and for ever execrated Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter Fullo, Acacius, and all their successors, accomplices, abettors, and all who communicated with them." Gelasius died in Nov. 496. A curious treatise of his called Tomus de Anathematis Vinculo refers to those canons of the council of Chalcedon, giving independent authority to the see of Constantinople, of which pope Leo had disapproved, setting forth that the fact of this council having done something wrongly did not impair the validity of what it had rightly done, and that the approval of the see of Rome was the sole test of what was right. The tract contains further arguments as to Rome alone having been competent to reconcile Peter Mongus or to absolve Acacius, and in reference to the idea of the emperor having had power in the latter case without the leave of Rome, the same distinction between the spheres of the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions is drawn as in the letter to the emperor. Melchizedek is referred to as having in old times been both priest and king; the devil, it is said, in imitation of him, had induced the emperors to assume the supreme pontificate; but since Christianity had revealed the truth to the world, the union of the two powers had ceased to be lawful. Christ, in consideration of human frailty, had now for ever separated them, leaving the emperors dependent on the pontiffs for their everlasting salvation, the pontiffs on the emperors for the administration of all temporal affairs. Milman ( Lat. Christ. ) remarks on the contrast between the interpretation of the type of Melchizedek and that given in the 13th cent. by pope Innocent IV., who takes Melchizedek as prefiguring the union in the pope of the sacerdotal and royal powers. Two other works are attributed to Gelasius in which views are expressed not easily reconciled with those of his successors. One is a tract, the authenticity of which has not been questioned, against the Manicheans at Rome, in which the practice, adopted by that sect, of communion in one kind is strongly condemned. His words are, "We find that some, taking only the portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. Let these (since I know not by what superstition they are actuated) either receive the entire sacraments or be debarred from them altogether; because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege." Baronius evades the obviously general application of these words by saying that they refer only to the Manicheans. The treatise de Duabus Naturis, arguing against the Eutychian position that the union of the human and divine natures in Christ implies the absorption of the human into the divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, similitude, and representation of the same mystery, the point being that as, after consecration, the natural substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature of Christ remained unchanged notwithstanding its union with divinity. His words are "The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, inasmuch as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be." This language being inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius first disputes the authorship of the treatise, and secondly, seeks to explain the words away. But if the authoritatively enunciated views of Gelasius on the relations between civil and ecclesiastical authority, on communion in one kind and on transubstantiation, are inconsistent with those subsequently endorsed by Rome, yet, on the other hand, few, if any, of his successors have gone beyond him in their claims of supreme and universal authority belonging by divine institution to the Roman see. Among his works is a treatise Decretum de Libsis Recipiendis, fixing the canonical books of Scripture, and distinguishing between ancient ecclesiastical writers to be received or rejected. It bears signs of a later date, having been first assigned to Gelasius by Hincmar of Rheims in the 7th cent. The most memorable of the works attributed to him is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which was that in use till Gregory the Great revised and abbreviated it. A new ed. was edited by H. A. Wilson (Oxf. 1894). See also C. H. Turner, in the Jl. of Theol. Studies (1900–1901), i. 556 ff. ^[2] A Sacramentary in several books found in the queen of Sweden's library, and published by Thomasius in 1680, is supposed to be the Gelasian one. The main authorities for his Life, besides the Liber Pontificalis, are the letters of himself and his contemporaries, and his other extant writings. ^[3]

Gregorius (51) I. ( The Great ), bp. of Rome from Sept. 3, 590, to Mar 12, 604; born at Rome probably c. 540, of a wealthy senatorial family. The family was a religious one; his mother Silvia, and Tarsilla and Aemiliana, the two sisters of his father Gordianus, have been canonized. Under such influences his education is spoken of by his biographer, John the deacon, as having been that of a saint among saints. Gregory of Tours, his contemporary, says that in grammar, rhetoric, and logic he was accounted second to none in Rome ( Hist. x. 1). He studied law, distinguished himself in the senate, and at an early age (certainly before 573) was recommended by the emperor Justin II. for the post of praetor urbis. After a public career of credit, his deep religious ideas suggested a higher vocation; and on his father's death he kept but a small share of the great wealth that came to him, employing the rest in charitable uses, and especially in founding monasteries, of which he endowed six in Sicily, and one, dedicated to St. Andrew, on the site of his own house near the church of SS. John and Paul at Rome. Here he himself became a monk. The date of his first retirement from the world, and its duration, are uncertain, as are also the exact dates of subsequent events previous to his accession to his see; but the most probable order of events is here followed. During his seclusion his asceticism is said to have been such as to endanger his life had he not been prevailed on by friends to abate its rigour; and it may have partly laid the foundation of his bad health in later life. Gregory Turonensis speaks of his stomach at this time being so enfeebled by fast and vigil that he could hardly stand. Benedict I., having ordained him one of the seven deacons ( regionarii ) of Rome, sent him as his apocrisiarius to Constantinople, and he was similarly employed in 579 by Benedict's successor Pelagius II. After this Gregory resided three years in Constantinople, where two noteworthy events occurred: his controversy with Eutychius, the patriarch, about the nature of the resurrection body; and the commencement of his famous work Magna Moralia . Recalled by Pelagius to Rome, he was allowed to return to his monastery, but was still employed as the pope's secretary. During his renewed monastic life and in his capacity of abbat he was distinguished for the strictness of his own life and the rigour of his discipline. One story which he tells leaves an impression of zeal carried to almost inhuman harshness. A monk, Julius, who had been a physician and had attended Gregory himself, night and day, during a long illness, being himself dangerously ill, confided to a brother that, in violation of monastic rule, he had three pieces of gold concealed in his cell. This confession was overheard, the cell searched, and the pieces found. Gregory forbade all to approach the offender, even in the agonies of death, and after death caused his body to be thrown on a dunghill with the pieces of gold, the monks crying aloud, "Thy money perish with thee" (Greg Dial. iv. 55). On Feb. 8, 590, Pelagius II. died, Rome being then in great straits. The Lombards were ravaging the country and threatening the city, aid being craved in vain from the distant emperor; within famine and plague were raging. Gregory was at once unanimously chosen by senate, clergy, and people to succeed Pelagius; but to him his election was distressing, and he wrote to the emperor Mauricius imploring him not to confirm it. His letter was intercepted by the prefect of Rome, and another sent, in the name of senate, clergy, and people, earnestly requesting confirmation. Before the reply of the emperor reached Rome, Gregory aroused the people to repentance by his sermons, and instituted the famous processional litany, called Litania septiformis. The emperor confirmed the election of Gregory, who fled in disguise, was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St. Peter, and immediately ordained on Sept. 3, 590 (Anastas. Bibliothec. and Martyrol. Roman. ). After his accession he continued in heart a monk, surrounding himself with ecclesiastics instead of laymen, and living with them according to monastic rule. In accordance with this plan a synodal decree was made under him in 595, substituting clergy or monks for the boys and secular persons who had formerly waited on the pope in his chamber (Ep. iv. 44). Yet he rose at once to his new position. The church shared in the distress and disorganization of the time. The fires of controversy of the last two centuries still raged in the East. In Istria and Gaul the schism on the question of the Three Chapters continued; in Africa the Donatists once more became aggressive against the Catholics. Spain had but just, and as yet imperfectly, recovered from Arianism. In Gaul the church was oppressed under its barbarian rulers; in Italy, under the Arian Lombards, the clergy were infected with the demoralization of the day. The monastic system was suffering declension and was now notoriously corrupt. Literature and learning had almost died with Boëthius; and all these causes combined with temporal calamities led to a prevalent belief, which Gregory shared, that the end of all things was at hand. Nor was the position of the papacy encouraging to one who, like Gregory, took a high view of the prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. Since the recovery of Italy by Justinian (after the capture of Rome by Belisarius in 536) the popes had been far less independent than even under the Gothic kings. Justinian regarded the bishops of Rome as his creatures, to be appointed, summoned to court, and deposed at his pleasure, and subject to the commands of his exarch at Ravenna. No reigns of popes had been so inglorious as those of Gregory's immediate predecessors, Vigilius, Pelagius I., Benedict, and Pelagius II. He himself describes the Roman church as "like an old and violently shattered ship, admitting the waters on all sides, its timbers rotten, shaken by daily storms, and sounding of wreck" ( Ep i.). Gregory may be regarded, first, as a spiritual ruler; secondly, as a temporal administrator and potentate; lastly, as to his personal character and as a doctor of the church. Immediately after his accession he sent, according to custom, a confession of his faith to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which he declared his reception of the first four general councils, as of the four gospels, and his condemnation of the Three Chapters—i.e. the writings of three deceased prelates, Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, supposed to savour of heresy, and already condemned by Justinian and by the fifth council called oecumenical. The strong language in which he exalts the authority of the four councils as "the square stone on which rests the structure of the faith, the rule of every man's actions and life, which foundation whoever does not hold is out of the building," is significant of his views on the authority of the church at large, while his recognition of the four patriarchs as co-ordinate potentates, to whom he sends an account of his own faith, expresses one aspect of the relation to the Eastern churches which then satisfied the Roman pontiffs. He lost no time in taking measures for the restoration of discipline, the reform of abuses, the repression of heresy, and the establishment of the authority of the Roman see, both in his own metropolitan province and wherever his influence extended. That jurisdiction was threefold—episcopal, metropolitan, and patriarchal. As bishop he had the oversight of the city; as metropolitan of the seven suffragan, afterwards called cardinal, bishops of the Roman territory, i.e. of Ostia, Portus, Silva Candida, Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and Albanum; while his patriarchate seems to have originally extended (according to Rufinus, H. E. i. ^[1] 6) over the suburban provinces under the civil jurisdiction of the vicarius urbis, including Upper Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. But being the only patriarch in the West, he had in fact claimed and exercised jurisdiction beyond these original limits, including the three other vicariates into which the prefecture of Italy was politically divided: N. Italy, with its centre at Milan, W. Illyricum, with its capital at Sirmium, and W. Africa, with its capital at Carthage. Before his accession a still wider authority had been claimed and in part acknowledged. As bishops of the old imperial city, with an acknowledged primacy of honour among the patriarchs, still more as occupants of St. Peter's chair and conservators of his doctrine, and as such consulted and appealed to by various Western churches, the popes had come to exercise a more or less defined jurisdiction over them all. The power of sending judges to hear the appeals of condemned bishops, which had been accorded to pope Julius by the Western council of Sardica in 343, had been claimed by his successors as perpetually belonging to the Roman see and extended so as to involve the summoning of cases to be heard at Rome; and a law had been obtained by Leo I. from Valentinian (445) by which the pope was made supreme head of the whole Western church, with the power of summoning prelates from all provinces to abide his judgment. On the assumption of such authority Gregory acted, being determined to abate none of the rights claimed by his predecessors. In the year of his accession (590) he endeavoured, though without result, to bring over the Istrian bishops, who still refused to condemn the Three Chapters. With this view he appointed a council to meet at Rome, and obtained an order from the emperor for the attendance of these bishops. They petitioned for exemption, saying that their faith was that formerly taught them by pope Vigilius, and protesting against submission to the bp. of Rome as their judge. The emperor countermanded the order, and Gregory acquiesced. In 591 his orthodox zeal was directed with more success against the African Donatists. It was the custom in Numidia for the senior bishop, whether Donatist or Catholic, to exercise metropolitan authority over the other bishops. Such senior now happened to be a Donatist, and he assumed the customary authority. Gregory wrote to the Catholic bishops of Numidia, and to Gennadius, exarch of Africa, urging them to resist such a claim (Ep. i. 74, 75), and the Donatist bishop was deposed, but the sect continued in Africa as long as Christianity did. This is not the only instance of Gregory, like others of his age, not being averse to persecution as a means of conversion. In Sicily he enjoined rigorous measures ( summopere persequi ) for the recovery of the Manicheans to the church (Ep. iv. 6); there, and in Corsica, Sardinia, and Campania, the heathen peasants and slaves on the papal estates were by his order compelled to conform, not only by exactions on such as refused, but also by the imprisonment of freemen, and the corporal castigation ( verberibus et cruciatibus ) of slaves (Ep. iii. 26; vii. ind. ii. 67), and in France he exhorted queen Brunichild to similar measures of coercion ( Ep. vii. 5). On the other hand, there are three letters of his, written in the same year as those about the African Donatists, which evince a spirit of unusual toleration towards Jews. They are addressed to three bishops, Peter of Tarracina, Virgilius of Arles, and Theodorus of Marseilles. The first had driven the Jews from their synagogues, and the last two had converted a number by offering them the choice of baptism or exile. Gregory strongly condemns such proceedings, "because conversions wrought by force are never sincere, and those thus converted seldom fail to return to their vomit when the force is removed." ( Ep. i. 34, i. 45; cf. Ep. vii. ind. i. 26, vii. ind. ii. 5, vii. 2, 59.) Yet he had no objection to luring them into the fold by the prospect of advantage, for in a letter to a deacon Cyprian, who was steward of the papal patrimony in Sicily, he directs him to offer the Jews a remission of one-third of the taxes due to the Roman church if they became Christians, saying, in justification, that though such conversions might be insincere, their children would be brought up in the bosom of the church ( Ep. iv. 6, cf. Ep. xii. 30). In such apparent inconsistencies we may see his good sense and Christian benevolence in conflict with the impulses of zeal and the notions of his age. Gregory was no less active in reforming the church itself. Great laxity was prevalent among the monks, of which the life of Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine order, affords ample evidence. Several of Gregory's letters are addressed to monks who had left their monasteries for the world and marriage. He issued the following regulations for the restoration of monastic discipline: no monk should be received under 18 years of age, nor any husband without his wife's consent (in one case he orders a husband who had entered a monastery to be restored to his wife ^[2]); two years of probation should always be required, and three in the case of soldiers; a professed monk leaving his order should be immured for life; no monk, though an abbat, should leave the precincts of his monastery, except on urgent occasions; under no pretext should any monk leave his monastery alone, on the ground that "Qui sine teste ambulat non rectè vivit." He provided for the more complete separation of the monastic and clerical orders, forbidding any monk to remain in his monastery after ordination, and any priest to enter a monastery except to exercise clerical functions, or to become a monk without giving up his clerical office; and further exempting some monasteries from the jurisdiction of bishops. This last important provision was extended to all monasteries by the Lateran synod, held under him in 601. He was no less zealous in his correction of the clergy. Several bishops under his immediate metropolitan jurisdiction and elsewhere he rebuked or deposed for incontinency and other crimes. His own nuncio at Constantinople, Laurentius the archdeacon, he recalled and deposed. From the clergy generally he required strict chastity, forbidding them to retain in their houses any women but their mothers, sisters, or wives married before ordination, and with these last prohibiting conjugal intercourse (Ep. i. 50, ix. 64). Bishops he recommends to imitate St. Augustine in banishing from their houses even such female relatives as the canons allow ( Ep. vii. ind. ii. 39; xi. 42, 43). In Sicily the obligation to celibacy had, in 588, been extended to subdeacons. This rule he upheld by directing the bishops to require a vow of celibacy from all who should in future be ordained subdeacons, but acknowledging its hardship on such as had made no such vow on their ordination, he contented himself with forbidding the advancement to the diaconate of existing subdeacons who had continued conjugal intercourse after the introduction of the rule ( Ep. i. ind. ix. 42). He also set himself resolutely against the prevalent simony, forbidding all bishops and clergy to exact or accept fee or reward for the functions of their office; and he set the example himself by refusing the annual presents which it had been customary for the bishops of Rome to receive from their suffragans, or payment for the pallium sent to metropolitans, which payment was forbidden to all future popes by a Roman synod in 595. In 592 began a struggle in reference to discipline with certain bishops of Thessaly and Dalmatia, in the province of Illyricum. Hadrianus of Thebes had been deposed by a provincial synod under his metropolitan the bp. of Larissa, and the sentence had been confirmed by John of Justiniana Prima, the primate of Illyricum. The deposed prelate appealed to Gregory, who, after examining the whole case, ordered the primate to reinstate Hadrianus (Ep. ii. ind. xi. 6, 7). He also ordered Natalis, bp. of Salona in Dalmatia and metropolitan, under pain of excommunication, to reinstate his archdeacon Honoratus whom he had deposed ( Ep. ii. ind. x. 14, 15, 16). In both instances he appears to have been obeyed. Not so, however, in the case of Maximus, who succeeded Natalis as bp. of Salona and metropolitan in the same year. Maximus having been elected in opposition to Honoratus, whom Gregory had recommended, the latter disallowed the election, and wrote to the clergy of Salona forbidding them to choose a bishop without the consent of the apostolic see. Meanwhile the emperor had confirmed the election. After, protracted negotiations, lasting 7 years, during which 17 letters were written by Gregory, the emperor committed the settlement of the dispute to Maximianus, bp. of Ravenna, with the result that Maximus, having publicly begged pardon of the pope and cleared himself from the charge of simony by an oath of purgation at the tomb of St. Apollinaris, was at last acknowledged as lawful bp. of Salona ( Ep. iii. ind. xii. 15, 20; iv. ind. xiii. 34; v. ind. xiv. 3; vi. ind. xv. 17; vii. ind. i. 1; vii. ind. ii. 81, 82, 83). In the West beyond the limits of the empire Gregory also lost no opportunity of extending the influence of his see and of advancing and consolidating the church. Reccared, the Visigothic king of Spain, renounced Arianism for Catholicism at the council of Toledo in 589, and Gregory heard of this from Leander, bp. of Seville, whom he exhorted to watch over the royal convert. He sent Leander a pallium to be used at mass only. He wrote to Reccared in warm congratulation, exhorting him to humility, chastity, and mercy; thanking him for presents received, and sending in return a key from the body of St. Peter, in which was some iron from the chain that had bound him, and a cross containing a piece of the true cross, and some hairs of John the Baptist ( Canones Eccles. Hispan. ). There is no distinct assumption, in these letters, of jurisdiction over the Spanish church, and this is the only known instance of a pallium having been sent to Spain previously to the Saracen invasion. The ancient Spanish church does not seem to have been noted for its dependence on the Roman see (see Geddes, Tracts , vol. ii. pp. 25, 49; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 188). With the Frank rulers of Gaul Gregory carefully cultivated friendly relations. In 595, at the request of king Childeric, he conferred the pallium on Virgilius of Arles, the ancient metropolitan see, whose bishop pope Zosimus had confirmed in his metropolitan right, and made vicar as early as 417. Not long after Gregory began a correspondence with queen Brunichild, in which he exhorts her to use her power for the correction of the vices of the clergy and the conversion of the heathen. Another royal female correspondent, cultivated and flattered with a similar purpose, and one more worthy of the praise conferred, was Theodelinda the Lombard queen. To 599 is assigned the extensive conversion of the Lombards to Catholicism, brought about after the death of king Antharis through the marriage of this Theodelinda, his widow, with Agilulph duke of Turin, who consequently succeeded to the throne. With this pious lady, a zealous Catholic, Gregory kept up a highly complimentary correspondence, sending her also a copy of his four books of dialogues. Over the church in Ireland, then bound by no close tie of allegiance to the see of Rome, he endeavoured to extend his influence, writing in 592 a long letter to the bishops. Not content with thus influencing, consolidating, and reforming the existing churches throughout the West, he was also a zealous missionary, and as such the founder of our English, as distinct from the more ancient British, Christianity. ^[3] Of his relations with Constantinople and the Eastern church, the year 593 affords the first example. Having heard of two presbyters, John of Chalcedon and Anastasius of Isauria, being beaten with cudgels, after conviction on a charge of heresy, under John the Faster, then patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory wrote twice to the patriarch, remonstrating with him for introducing a new and uncanonical punishment, exhorting him to restore the two presbyters or to judge them canonically, and expressing his own readiness to receive them at Rome. Notwithstanding the patriarch's protest, the presbyters thereupon withdrew to Rome and were received and absolved by Gregory after examination (Ep. ii. 52, v. 64). In other letters we find him saying, "With respect to the Constantinopolitan church, who doubts that it is subject to the apostolical see?" and "I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault is found in him" ( Ep. vii. ind. ii. 64, 65). But the most memorable incidents in this connexion are his remonstrances against the assumption by John the Faster of the title of oecumenical or universal bishop. They began in 595, being provoked by the repeated occurrence of the title in a judgment against an heretical presbyter which had been sent to Rome. The title was not new. Patriarchs had been so styled by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and it had been confirmed to John the Faster and his successors by a general Eastern synod at Constantinople in 588, pope Pelagius protesting against it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius at Constantinople, desiring him to use his utmost endeavours with the patriarch, the emperor, and the empress, to procure the renunciation of the title; and when this failed, he himself wrote to all these in peculiarly strong language. The title he called foolish, proud, pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diabolical usurpation; the ambition of any who assumed it was like that of Lucifer, and its assumption a sign of the approach of the king of pride, i.e. Antichrist. His arguments are such as to preclude himself as well as others from assuming the title, though he implies that if any could claim it it would be St. Peter's successors. Peter, he says, was the first of the apostles, yet neither he nor any of the others would assume the title universal, being all members of the church under one head, Christ. He also states (probably in error) that the title had been offered to the bp. of Rome at the council of Chalcedon, and refused. Failing entirely to make an impression at Constantinople, he addressed himself to the Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, representing the purpose of their brother of Constantinople as being that of degrading them, and usurping to himself all ecclesiastical power. They, however, were not thus moved to action; they seem to have regarded the title as one of honour only, suitable to the patriarch of the imperial city; and one of them, Anastasius, wrote in reply that the matter seemed to him of little moment. The controversy continued after the death of John the Faster. Gregory instructed his apocrisiarius at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the proud and impious title which his predecessor had wickedly assumed. In vain did Cyriacus send a nuncio to Rome in the hope of arranging matters: Gregory was resolute, and wrote, "I confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be so called in his elation, is the forerunner of Antichrist." At this time he seems to have gained a supporter, if not to his protest, at any rate to the paramount dignity of his own see, in Eulogius of Alexandria, whom he had before addressed without result. For in answering a letter from that patriarch, he acknowledges with approval the dignity assigned by him to the see of St. Peter, and expresses adroitly a curious view of his correspondent, as well as the patriarch of Antioch, being a sharer in it. "Who does not know," he says, "that the church was built and established on the firmness of the prince of the apostles, by whose very name is implied a rock? Hence, though there were several apostles, there is but one apostolic see, that of the prince of the apostles, which has acquired great authority; and that see is in three places, in Rome where he died, in Alexandria where it was founded by his disciple St. Mark, and in Antioch where he himself lived seven years. These three, therefore, are but one see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who are but one in Him Who said, I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." But when Eulogius in a second letter styled the bp. of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly rejected such a title, saying, "If you give more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself of what is due to you. Nothing can redound to my honour that redounds to the dishonour of my brethren. If you call me universal pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. Let no such titles be mentioned or ever heard among us." Gregory was obliged at last to acquiesce in the assumption of the obnoxious title by the Constantinopolitan patriarch; and it may have been by way of contrast that he usually styled himself in his own letters by the title since borne by the bps. of Rome, "Servus servorum Dei." Evidently Gregory and his opponents took different views of the import of the title contended for. They represented it as one simply of honour and dignity, while he regarded it as involving the assumption of supreme authority over the church at large, and especially over the see of St. Peter, whence probably in a great measure the vehemence of his remonstrance. In the different views taken appears the difference of principle on which pre-eminence was in that age thought assignable to sees in the East and West respectively. In the East the dignity of a see was regarded as an appanage of a city's civil importance, on which ground alone could any pre-eminence be claimed for Constantinople. In the West it was the apostolical origin of the see, and the purely ecclesiastical pre-eminence belonging to it from ancient times, to which especial regard was paid. Thus viewed, the struggle of Gregory for the dignity of his own see against that of Constantinople assumes importance as a protest against the Erastianism of the East. It certainly would not have been well for the church had the spiritual authority of the bps. of Rome accrued to the subservient patriarchs of the Eastern capital. As a temporal administrator and potentate Gregory evinced equally great vigour, ability, and zeal, guided by address and judgment. The see of Rome had large possessions, constituting what was called the patrimony of St. Peter, in Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica, and also in more remote parts, e.g. Dalmatia, Illyricum, Gaul, and even Africa and the East. Over these estates Gregory exercised a vigilant superintendence by means of officers called "rectores patrimonii" and "defensores," to whom his letters remain, prescribing minute regulations for the management of the lands, and guarding especially against any oppression of the peasants. The revenues accruing to the see, thus carefully secured, though with every possible regard to humanity and justice, were expended according to the fourfold division then prevalent in the West—viz. in equal parts for the bishop, the clergy, the fabric and services of the church, and the poor. This distribution, publicly made four times a year, Gregory personally superintended. His own charities were immense, a large portion of the population of Rome being dependent on them: every day, before his own meal, a portion was sent to the poor at his door; the sick and infirm in every street were sought out; and a large volume was kept containing the names, ages, and dwellings of the objects of his bounty. A field for the exercise of his political abilities was afforded by his position as virtual ruler of Rome at that critical time. His letters and homilies gave a lamentable account of the miseries of the country, and he endeavoured to conclude a peace between Agilulph, the Lombard king, who was himself disposed to come to terms, and the exarch Romanus. These endeavours were frustrated by the opposition of Romanus, who represented Gregory to the emperor as having been overreached by the crafty enemy. The emperor believed his exarch, and wrote to Gregory in condemnation of his conduct. In vain did Gregory remonstrate in letters both to the emperor and to the empress Constantina, complaining to the latter not so much of the ravages of the Lombards as of the cruelty and exactions of the imperial officers; but though small success crowned his efforts, whatever mitigation of distress was accomplished was due to him. In 601 an event occurred which shews Gregory in a less favourable light, with respect to his relations to the powers of the world than anything else during his career. Phocas, a centurion, was made emperor by the army. He secured his throne by the murder of Mauricius, whose six sons had been first cruelly executed before their father's eyes. He afterwards put to death the empress Constantina and her three daughters, who had been lured out of the asylum of a church under a promise of safety. Numerous persons of all ranks and in various parts of the empire are also said to have been put to death with unusual cruelty. To Phocas and his consort Leontia, who is spoken of as little better than her husband, Gregory wrote congratulatory letters in a style of flattery beyond even what was usual with him in addressing great potentates (Ep. xi. ind. vi. 38, 45. 46). His motive was doubtless largely the hope of obtaining from the new powers the support which Mauricius had not accorded him in his dispute with the Eastern patriarch. This motive appears plainly in one of his letters to Leontia, to whom, rather than to the emperor, with characteristic tact, he intimates his hopes of support to the church of St. Peter, endeavouring to work upon her religious fears. Gregory lived only 16 months after the accession of Phocas, dying after protracted suffering from gout on Mar 12, 604. He was buried in the basilica of St. Peter. Immediately after his death a famine occurred, which the starving multitude attributed to his prodigal expenditure, and his library was only saved from destruction by the interposition of the archdeacon Peter. The pontificate of Gregory the Great is rightly regarded as second to none in its influence on the future form of Western Christianity. He lived in the period of transition from Christendom under imperial rule to the medieval papacy, and he laid or consolidated the foundation of the latter. He advanced, indeed, no claims to authority beyond what had been asserted by his predecessors; yet the consistency, firmness, conscientious zeal, as well as address and judgment, with which he maintained it, and the waning of the power of the Eastern empire, left him virtual ruler of Rome and the sole power to whom the Western church turned for support, and whom the Christianized barbarians, founders of the new kingdom of Europe, regarded with reverence. Thus he paved the way for the system of papal absolutism that culminated under Gregory VII. and Innocent III. As a writer he was intellectually eminent; and deserves his place among the doctors of the church, though his learning and mental attitude were those of his age. As a critic, an expositor, an original thinker, he may not stand high; he knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, and had no deep acquaintance with the Christian Fathers; literature for its own sake he set little store by; classical literature, as being heathen, he repudiated. Yet as a clear and powerful exponent of the received orthodox doctrine, especially in its practical aspect, as well as of the system of hagiology, demonology, and monastic asceticism, which then formed part of the religion of Christendom, he spoke with a loud and influential voice to many ages after his own, and contributed more than any one person to fix the form and tone of medieval religious thought. He was also influential as a preacher, and no less famous for his influence on the music and liturgy of the church; whence he is called "magister caeremoniarum." To cultivate church singing he instituted a song-school in Rome, called Orphanotrophium , the name of which implies also a charitable purpose. Of it, John the deacon, after speaking of the cento of antiphons which Gregory ha

Hilarius (18) ( Hilarus ), bp. of Rome from Nov. 19 (or 17, Bolland.), 461, to Sept. 10, 467, succeeding Leo I., after a vacancy of nine days. He was a native of Sardinia and, when elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had been sent, when a deacon, as one of the legates of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned in the Acts of the council as having protested against the deposition of Flavian. After the council, Flavian having died from the violent treatment he had undergone, Hilarius, fearing with reason the like usage, escaped from Ephesus and travelled by by-roads to Italy. A letter from Hilarius, addressed after his return to the empress Pulcheria, gives an account of these transactions (Baron. ad ann. 449, and Act. Concil. Chalced .). His short pontificate is chiefly memorable for his assertion of the authority of the see of Rome in Gaul and Spain. His predecessor Leo, during his struggle with St. Hilary of Arles for supremacy in Gaul, had obtained from Valentinian III. a famous rescript (445) confirming such supremacy to the fullest extent both in Gaul and elsewhere ^[1]; and to such extent it was accordingly claimed by Hilarius. Soon after his accession he wrote (Jan. 25, 462) to Leontius, bp. of Arles and exarch of the provinces of Narbonensian Gaul, announcing the event and referring to the deference due to the Roman see. In the same year he wrote a second letter to Leontius, who had deferentially congratulated the pope on his accession, and had begged him to continue the favour shewn to the see of Arles against opponents of its jurisdiction. The pope, in his reply, commends his correspondent's deference to St. Peter and desires that the discipline of the Roman church should prevail in all churches. Rusticus, metropolitan of Narbonne, had nominated his archdeacon Hermes as his successor, but had failed to obtain Leo's approval. On the death of Rusticus, Hermes had been accepted by the clergy and people of Narbonne as their metropolitan bishop. On this, Frederic, king of the West Goths, an Arian, wrote to acquaint the pope with the "wicked usurpation" and "execrable presumption" of Hermes. Accordingly Hilarius wrote a third letter to Leontius, in which he adopts the language of Frederic, and requires Leontius to send to Rome a statement of the affair, signed by himself and other bishops (Hil. Ep. vii. Labbe). The matter was now brought before a synod at Rome (462), and Hermes was declared degraded from the rank of metropolitan, but allowed to retain his see. Hilarius notified this decision in a letter dated Dec. 3, 462, to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne, Lyons, Narbonensis prima and secunda, and the Pennine Alps, which letter also contained regulations for the discipline of the church in Gaul (Hil. Ep. viii. Labbe). In 463 Hilarius again interposed in the affairs of the church in Gaul; and on this occasion not only Leontius of Arles but also Mamertus, metropolitan of Vienne, fell under his displeasure. The city Diae Vocontiorum (Die in Dauphine) had been assigned by pope Leo to the jurisdiction of Arles; but Mamertus had, notwithstanding, ordained a bp. of that see. Hilarius, again deriving his information from an Arian prince, Gundriac the Burgundian king, wrote a severe letter to Leontius, censuring him for not having apprized the holy see, and charging him to investigate the matter in a synod and then send to Rome a synodal letter giving a true account of it. Mamertus seems to have continued to assert his claim to jurisdiction in spite of the pope; for in Feb. 464 we find two more letters from Hilarius, a general one to the Gallican bishops, and another to various bishops addressed by name, in the former of which he accuses Mamertus of presumption and prevarication, threatens to deprive him of his metropolitan rank and disallows the bishops whom he had ordained till confirmed by Leontius. The second letter is noteworthy in that the pope rests his claim to supremacy over Gaul on imperial as well as ecclesiastical law; alluding probably to the rescript of Valentinian III. "He ^[2] could not abrogate any portion of the right appointed to our brother Leontius by my predecessor of holy memory; since it has been decreed by the law of Christian princes that whatsoever the prelate of the apostolic see may, on his own judgment, have pronounced to churches and their rulers . . . is to be tenaciously observed; nor can those things ever be upset which shall be supported by both ecclesiastical and royal injunction" (Hil. Epp. ix. x. xi. Labbe). Baronius finds it needful to account for St. Leo and St. Hilarius having so bitterly inveighed against St. Hilary and St. Mamertus by saying that popes may be deceived on matters of fact, and, under the prepossession of false accusations, persecute the innocent (Baron. ad ann. 464). In 465 Hilary exercised over the Spanish church the authority already brought to bear on that of Gaul, but this time on appeal. Two questions came before him. First, Silvanus, bp. of Calchorra, had been guilty of offences against the canons; and his metropolitan, Ascanius of Tarragona, had in 464 sent a synodal letter on the subject to the pope, requesting directions (Inter Hilar. Epp., Ep. ii. Labbe). Secondly, Nundinarius, bp. of Barcelona, had nominated his successor, and after his death the nomination was confirmed by the metropolitan Ascanius and his suffragans. But they wrote to the pope desiring his concurrence and acknowledging the primacy of St. Peter's see. Both these letters were considered in a synod at Rome. On the second case it was decided that Irenaeus, the nominated bishop, should quit the see of Barcelona and return to his former one, while the Spanish bishops were ordered to condone the uncanonical acts of Silvanus (Hil. Epp. i. ii. iii. and Concil. Rom. xlviii. Labbe). In 467 the new emperor Anthemius was induced by one Philotheus a Macedonian heretic whom he had brought with him, to issue a general edict of toleration for heretics. This was, however, revoked before coming into effect, and pope Gelasius (Ep. ad Episc. Dardan. ) says that this was due to Hilarius having in the church of St. Peter remonstrated with the emperor and induced him to promise on oath that he would allow no schismatical assemblies in Rome. In the same year Hilarius died. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and confessor. In remembrance of his deliverance at Ephesus from the trials that procured him the title of confessor, he built, after he became pope, in the baptistery of Constantine near the Lateran, two chapels dedicated to St. John Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, to the latter of whom he attributed his deliverance. The chapel to the Evangelist bore the inscription, "Liberatori suo Johanni Evangelistae, Hilarus famulus Christi" (Bolland. citing Caesar Rasponus). The extant writings of Hilarius are his letters referred to above. Anastasius Bibliothecarius mentions his decreta sent to various parts, confirming the synods of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, condemning Eutyches, Nestorius, and all heretics, and confirming the domination and primacy of the holy Catholic and apostolic see (Concil. Rom. u.s. ; Thiel. Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.). ^[3]

Martyr; antipope from 217 to 235; died Sardinia in 236. Little historically certain is known of his life due to the discordant traditions which are extant. After the death of Pope Zephyrinus he secured his election by a small band of followers in opposition to Callistus I whom he considered a heretic. He remained anti-pope during the reigns of Pope Urban I and Pope Pontian, and was banished to Sardinia in 235, where he became reconciled with the Church. Hippolytus was one of the most important and prolific theological writers of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Most of his writings have been lost but his "Philosophumena" (Refutation of all Heresies) was discovered in a monastery at Mount Athos in 1842. Of the ten books the second, third, and part of the fourth are missing. The Philosophumena is written in Greek, as are all his writings, and discusses the early heresies under five headings: Ophites; Simonists; Basilidians; Docetae; Noetians. It comprises the most valuable source for the history of the early heresies. Feast, Roman Calendar, August 22,.

Strength; power

Alexander I., bp. of Rome, is stated by all the authorities to have been the successor of Evaristus. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 4) makes him succeed in A.D. 109, in his Chronicle, A. D. 111 (f. 89). He assigns him in both works a reign of ten years. He has been confused with a martyr of the same name, who is mentioned in a fragment of an inscription. ^[1]

Hormisdas (8) , bp. of Rome after Symmachus from July 26, 514, to Aug. 6, 523, Anastasius and Justin being successively emperors of the East and Theodoric ruling the West as king of Italy. Hormisdas was a native of Frusino in Campania. Pope Silverius (acc. 536) is said to have been his son (Liberat. Breviar. 22). The memorable event of his pontificate was the restoration of communion between Rome and Constantinople, which had been interrupted since 484, in connexion with the Eutychian heresy. ^[1] The first overtures were made in 515 by the emperor Anastasius, being moved thereto by Vitalian, a Scythian, the commander of the imperial cavalry, who, having taken up the cause of orthodoxy, made himself master of Thrace, Scythia, and Mysia, and marched with an army of Huns and Bulgarians to the gates of Constantinople. Anastasius had to procure peace by assenting to 3 conditions, one being that he should summon a council at Heraclea, the pope being invited and free discussion allowed (Theophan. Chron. ad an. Imp. Anast. 23). In 515 the emperor wrote to Hormisdas, desiring his concurrence in restoring unity to the church by means of such a council; and Hormisdas, after a guarded reply, sent legates to Constantinople with letters to the emperor and Vitalian, and a statement of the necessary conditions for union. These were: (1) The emperor should issue to all bishops of his dominion a written declaration accepting the council of Chalcedon and the letters of pope Leo. (2) A like declaration should be publicly signed by the Eastern bishops, who should also anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter the Fuller, and Acacius, with all their followers. (3) Persons exiled for religion should be recalled and their cases reserved for the judgment of the apostolic see. (4) Such exiles as had been in communion with Rome and professed the catholic faith should first be recalled. (5) Bishops accused of having persecuted the orthodox should be sent to Rome to be judged. Thus the emperor proposed a free discussion in council; the pope required the unqualified acceptance of orthodoxy, and submission to himself as head of Christendom, before he would treat at all. He did not reject the idea of a council, but, from his point of view, none was wanted. The Easterns had but to renounce their errors and accept the terms of reconciliation dictated by the apostolic see, and peace would be at once restored. This attempt failed, as Anastasius, though now professing orthodoxy, demurred to erasing the name of Acacius from the diptychs. But he continued his overtures. In 516 he sent two distinguished laymen to Rome with a letter to Hormisdas. But Hormisdas continued resolute, and the emperor dismissed the bishops already assembled at Heraclea for the intended council. In a letter to Avitus of Vienne (517) the pope, referring to this embassy, complains of the fruitless and perfidious promises of the Greeks, but rejoices at the faithfulness of the churches of Gaul, Thrace, Dardania, and Illyricum, which had stood firm against persecution in the communion of Rome. It appears that 40 bishops of Illyricum and Greece had renounced obedience to their metropolitan of Thessalonica and sent to Hormisdas to seek communion with Rome (Theophan. Chron. ). Hormisdas, building on the emperor's political necessities, sent in 517 a second embassy to the East with increased demands. They were charged with a rule of faith (regula fidei ) for the signature of all who desired reconciliation with Rome which was more exacting than any previous document. The signers were to declare that, mindful of the text "Thou art Peter," etc., the truth of which has been proved by the immaculate religion ever maintained by the apostolic see, they profess in all things to follow that see, and to desire communion with it. Accordingly they were to accept the decrees of Chalcedon and the "tome" of pope Leo, and also all letters on religion he had ever written; and not only to anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Fullo, and Acacius, with all their followers, but also exclude from their diptychs all who had been "sequestrated from catholic communion," which is explained to mean communion with the apostolic see. Such demands ended the negotiations, and Anastasius peremptorily dismissed the legates, and sent a reply to Hormisdas (July 11, 517) which ended: "We can bear to be injured and set at naught; we will not be commanded" (Hormisd. Epp. post. Ep. xxii. Labbe). Persecutions were now renewed in the East. The monasteries of the orthodox in Syria Secunda were burnt and ago monks massacred. The survivors sent a deputation to the pope, acknowledging in ample terms the supremacy of "the most holy and blessed patriarch of the whole world," "the successor of the Prince of the Apostles," and "the Head of all." They implore him to exercise his power of binding and loosing in defence of the true faith, and to anathematize all heretics, including Acacius (ib. ). To this appeal Hormisdas replied in a letter to all the orthodox in the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in the faith of Chalcedon, and to patience under present straits (in Act. V. Concil. Constantin. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1111). The death of Anastasius (July 9, 118) and the accession of the orthodox Justin changed the aspect of affairs. During divine service at Constantinople, while John the Cappadocian (who had lately succeeded Timotheus as patriarch) was officiating, the populace, who had been all along on the orthodox side, seem to have made a riot in the church in the impatience of their orthodox zeal, crying, "Long live the emperor!" "Long live the patriarch!" They would not brook delay. By continued cries, by closing the doors of the church and saying they would not leave it till he had done what they wanted, they compelled him to proclaim the acceptance of the four general councils, including Chalcedon. A synod, attended by some 40 bishops, ratified what the patriarch had done. Letters were sent to various Eastern metropolitans, including those of Jerusalem, Tyre, and Syria Secunda, who forthwith reported to the synod the full acceptance of orthodoxy by their several churches (ib. p. 1131, etc.). Coercive measures were used by Justin. In two edicts he ordered the restoration of the orthodox exiled by Anastasius, the acknowledgment of the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs of all churches, and declared heretics incapable of public offices, civil or military. The pope insisted upon the erasure of the name of Acacius and the subscription of the rule of faith rejected by Anastasius as the first steps to restoration of communion. In 519 Hormisdas sent a legation to Constantinople, charged with letters to the emperor and patriarch, and also to the empress Euphemia and other persons of distinction, including three influential ladies. Anastasia, Palmatia, and Anicia. They carried with them the libellus described above, to be signed by all who desired reconciliation. At Constantinople they were met by Vitalian, Justinian, and other senators, and received by the emperor in the presence of the senate and a deputation of four bishops to represent the patriarch. The libellus was read; the bishops had nothing to say against it, and the emperor and senators recommended them to accept it. The patriarch proved unwilling to sign it as it stood; but at length, after much contention, it was agreed that he might embody the libellus unaltered in a letter, with his own preamble. This was done, the names of Acacius and his successors in the see, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, and of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs; the bishops of other cities, and the archimandrites who had been previously reluctant, now came to terms; and the legates wrote to the pope expressing thankfulness that so complete a triumph had been won without sedition, tumult, or shedding of blood. The patriarch's preamble was a protest against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. He says, "Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." The same view of the unity of the two sees is expressed in his letter to Hormisdas. Even Justin, in his letter to the pope, guards against implying that the authority of Constantinople was inferior to that of Rome, saying that "John, the prelate of our new Rome, with his clergy, agrees with you," and that "all concur in complying with what is your wish, as well as that of the Constantinopolitan see." Peace being thus concluded at Constantinople, a deputation was sent to Thessalonica, headed by bp. John, the papal legate, to receive the submission of that church. Dorotheus, bp. of Thessalonica, tore the libellus in two before the people, and declared that never would he sign it or assent to such as did. Hormisdas, on hearing of this, wrote to the emperor, requiring that Dorotheus should be deposed. But Dorotheus was summoned to Constantinople to be tried, sent thence to Heraclea while his cause was being heard, and eventually allowed to return to his see. He and his church were now restored to Catholic communion, and he wrote a respectful letter to the pope (a.d. 520) expressing great regard for him personally and for the apostolic see. Hormisdas replied that he was anxious to believe in his innocence, and in his being the author of the peace now concluded, but expressed dissatisfaction that he "delayed even to follow those whom he ought to have led." and hoped he would "repel from himself the odium of so great a crime, and in reconciliation to the faith would at length follow the example of those who had returned." It thus seems clear that Dorotheus, though professing orthodoxy and restored by the emperor to his see, had not so far fully complied, if he ever did, with the pope's terms ( Inter Epp. Hormisd. lxii. lxiii. lxxii. lxxiii.). Notwithstanding the general triumph of orthodoxy throughout the East, except at Alexandria, the unbending pertinacity of Hormisdas still caused difficulties. In 520 the emperor Justinian and Epiphanius (who had succeeded John as patriarch) wrote urgent letters to him on the subject. They alleged that, though the condition was complied with in the imperial city, yet no small part of the Orientals, especially in the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Oriens, would not be compelled by sword, fire, or torments to comply, and they implored the pope not to be more exacting than his predecessors. The pope persisted in his demand, and urged Justin, as a duty, not to shrink from coercion. He authorized Epiphanius to deal at his discretion with various cases (ib. lxxii. Concil. Constant. act. V.. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1119). A nice question, arising out of the now defined orthodox doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ, came before Hormisdas for settlement. There being but one Personality in the Incarnate Word, and that Divine, it seemed correct to say that this Divine Person suffered, and yet to say this seemed to attribute passibility to the Godhead. It was undoubted Nestorian heresy to deny that lie Whom the Blessed Virgin brought forth was God. But He Who was brought forth was the same with Him Who suffered on the Cross. On the other hand "God was crucified" had been a favourite Monophysite formula, used to emphasize their doctrine of the absorption of the human nature into the divine; and great offence had formerly been given to the orthodox by the addition of "Who wast crucified for us" to the Trisagion by Peter Fullo. The adoption of this addition at Constantinople under Anastasius had caused a popular tumult, and it was probably its abrogation during the reaction under Justin that caused certain Scythian monks to defend the formula, and to maintain that "one of the holy and undivided Trinity" suffered. The question was laid before the legates of Hormisdas, when in Constantinople, a.d. 529. They decided against the Scythian monks, arguing that the faith had been fully and sufficiently defined at Chalcedon and in the letter of pope Leo, and that the formula of the monks was an unauthorized novelty, likely to lead to serious heresy. The monks contended that its adoption was necessary for rendering the definitions of Chalcedon distinct against Nestorianism. Vitalian seems to have supported them. Justin and Justinian begged the pope to settle the question. He wrote to desire that the monks should be kept at Constantinople; but they managed to get to Rome to lay their case before him (Ep. lxxix. Labbe). At length they left Rome, having publicly proclaimed their views there. Hormisdas does not seem to have actually condemned the expression of the monks, though annoyed by their propounding it, but spoke strongly against it as an unnecessary novelty. In the end, however, their view triumphed. For in 533 the emperor Justinian issued an edict asserting that "the sufferings and miracles are of one and the same—for we do not acknowledge God the Word to be one and Christ another, but one and the same: for the Trinity remained even after the Incarnation of the One Word of God, Who was of the Trinity; for the Holy Trinity does not admit of the addition of a fourth person. We anathematize Nestorius the man-worshipper, and those who think with him, who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our God, Incarnate, made man, and crucified, was One of the holy consubstantial Trinity" ( Lex Justinian. a.d. 533 Cod. I. i. 6; Joann. Pap. ii. Epp. in Patr. Lat. lxvi. 18 B), and it has since been accounted orthodox to affirm that God suffered in the flesh, though in His assumed human, not in His original divine, nature. (See Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.). Hormisdas died early in Aug. 523, having held the see 9 years and 11 days. He, as well as all the popes during the schism with the East, except the too conciliatory Anastasius, has had his firmness acknowledged by canonization, his day in the Roman Calendar being Aug. 6. His extant writings consist of letters, 80 being attributed to him, one of which, to St. Remigius (in which he gives him vicariate jurisdiction over the kingdom of Clovis which he had converted, is probably spurious, as it implies that Clovis was still reigning, though he had died in 511, more than two years before the election of Hormisdas. Most of the remaining 70 letters refer to the affairs of the East, several to the metropolitan see of Nicopolis in Epirus (Hormisd. vi.–ix., xvii.–xxii.). Three letters of Hormisdas (xxiv.–xxvi.), to John, bp. of Tarragona, Sallustius, bp. of Seville, and the bishops of Spain in general, give the two prelates vicariate jurisdiction over E. and W. Spain, exhort against simony and other irregularities, and direct the regular convention of synods. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i. Hormisdas had great administrative and diplomatic abilities, was singularly uncompromising and firm of purpose, and one of the most strenuous and successful assertors of the supremacy of the Roman see. ^[2]

Hyginus (1) , bp. of Rome after Telesphorus, probably from 137 to 141. Our early authorities for the dates and duration of his episcopate are confused, as in the case of other bishops of that early period. Anastasius (Lib. Pontif ) says that he was a Greek, son of an Athenian philosopher, of unknown genealogy. Several spurious decretals are assigned to him. See Mart. Rom. under Jan. 11; also Lightfoot, on the Early Roman successions, Apost. Fath. part i. vol. i. ^[1]

Innocentius (12) I., bp. of Rome, after Anastasius, from May 402, to Mar 12, 417. The circumstances of his time and the character and talents of Innocent render his pontificate important. Christianity had now for nearly a century been the religion of the emperors; paganism was fast becoming a system of the past; the capture of Rome by Alaric during his pontificate, regarded as the divine judgment on the heathen city and causing the dispersion and ruin of the remains of the heathen nobility, completed the downfull of the ancient order. With the ascendancy of the church had grown that of the hierarchy, and especially of the head of that hierarchy in the West, the Roman bishop. The need of centres of unity and seats of authority to keep the church together amid doctrinal conflicts; the power and importance hence accruing to the patriarchal sees, and especially to Rome as the one great patriarchate of the West, the see of the old seat of empire and the only Western one that claimed apostolic origin; the view now generally received of the bp. of Rome as the successor of the prince of the apostles; the removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople, leaving the pope, when there was but one emperor, the sole Western potentate, and when there were two, as in Innocent's time, the fixing of the imperial residence at Ravenna instead of Rome,—such were among the causes of the aggrandizement of the Roman see. The Western church had been comparatively free from the controversies which had divided the East, nor had the popes taken much personal part in them; but they had almost invariably supported the orthodox cause, received and protected the orthodox under persecution, and, after watching with quiet dignity the Eastern struggle, had accepted and confirmed the decisions of orthodox councils. Hence Rome appeared as the bulwark of the cause of truth, and its claim to be the unerring guardian of the apostolic faith and discipline gained extensive credence. Innocent himself was eminently the man to enter into, and make the most of, the position he was called to occupy. Unstained in life, able and resolute, with a full appreciation of the dignity and prerogatives of his see, he lost no opportunity of asserting its claims, and under him the idea of universal papal supremacy, though as yet somewhat shadowy, was already taking form. At his accession the empire had for seven years been divided between the two sons of Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius; the latter, now 18 years of age, under the control of the great general Stilicho, ruling in the West. Two years after Innocent's accession (a.d. 404) he fixed his residence at Ravenna. I. WEST. (i) Illyria. —Immediately after his election Innocent wrote to Anysius, bp. of Thessalonica, informing him of the event and giving him the oversight of the churches of eastern Illyria. The prefecture of Illyria had been dismembered since 388, the Eastern part, including Dacia and Macedonia, being assigned to the Eastern empire, but popes Damasus and Siricius had continued to claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the separated portion, delegating their authority to the bishops of Thessalonica. Innocent thus made no new claim, nor did he hereby assert any authority over the East generally (Innoc. Ephesians 1 ; Galland. Bibl. Patr. ). When Rufus, some years after, succeeded Anysius as bp. of Thessalonica, a letter was at once sent to him, reversing the vicariate commission, defining its extent, and reminding him that his jurisdiction was derived from the favour of the apostolic see only. In 414 we find Innocent exercising authority of a summary kind, without the intervention of the bp. of Thessalonica, in East Illyria. The bishops of Macedonia had sent him a synodal letter, desiring directions as to: (1) Whether persons ordained by one Bonosus, a deceased heretical bishop, might be admitted to the priesthood. (2) Whether persons who had married widows might be ordained and made bishops, for which allowance they pleaded the custom of their church. (3) They had asked leave to raise to the episcopate one Photinus, who had been condemned by Innocent's predecessors, and to depose a deacon called Eustatius. Some at least of these questions had already been decided by Innocent, for he expresses surprise and displeasure at their being again mooted. He then authoritatively decides them. Those who had married widows he debars from ordination, citing the prohibition of such marriages to the high-priest under the Mosaic law. Those ordained by Bonosus are debarred the priesthood by the law of the Roman church (lex nostrae ecclesiae ), which admitted to lay communion persons baptized by heretics, but did not recognize their orders. The Nicene canon about the Novatianists, he says, applied to them only, and the condonation by Anysius had only been a temporary expedient. The question whether those who had married one wife before and another after baptism were to be accounted deuterogamists, and so incapable of ordination, he discussed at length also in other epistles. He decides that they are to be so accounted, for baptism is not the commencement of a new life in such sort as to relax the obligations of a previous marriage. Though with hesitation and much anxiety, he allows the promotion of Photinus, notwithstanding the condemnation of him by previous popes, on the ground that they had been imposed on by false reports; and he disallows the deposition of Eustatius (Ep. xvii. Galland.). Another epistle, addressed to the bishops of Macedonia, confirms the deposition of Babalius and Taurianus, who had appealed to Rome from the sentence of the bishops of their province. This appeal the bishops seem to have taken amiss, for Innocent presses upon them the advantage of having their judgment revised ( Ep. xviii. Galland.). (ii) Gaul. —Victricius, bp. of Rouen, having been in Rome towards the end of 403 (Ep. ad Victric. § 14, and Paul. Nolan. Ep. ad Victric. xxxvii. 1), applied to the pope soon after for information as to the practice and discipline of the Roman church. Innocent sent him a letter containing 14 rules, of which he says that they are no new ones, but derived by tradition from the apostles and fathers, though too generally unknown or disregarded. He directs Victricius to communicate them to the bishops and others, with a view to their future observance. Among them were: (1) No bishop may ordain without the knowledge of his metropolitan and the assistance of other bishops. (3) Ordinary causes against bishops are to be determined by the other bishops of the province, saving always the authority of Rome. (4) Greater causes, after the judgment of the bishops, are to be referred to the apostolic see, "as the synod ^[1] has decreed." (6, 7) No layman who has married a widow, or been twice married, may be ordained. (8) No bishop may ordain any one from another diocese without leave of its bishop. (9) Converts from Novatianism and Montanism are to be received by imposition of hands only, without iteration of baptism; but such as, having left the church, had been rebaptized by heretics, are only to be received after long penance. (10) Priests and Levites who have wives are not to cohabit with them. This rule is supported by argument, resting mainly on the prohibition of intercourse with their wives to priests under the old law before officiating. Christian priests and Levites, it is argued, ought always to be prepared to officiate. (11) Monks, taking minor orders, may not marry. (12) Courtiers and public functionaries are not to be admitted to any clerical order; for they might have to exhibit or preside over entertainments undoubtedly invented by the devil, and were liable to be recalled to his service by the emperor, so as to cause much "sadness and anxiety." Victricius is reminded of painful cases he had witnessed in Rome, when the pope had with difficulty obtained from the emperor the exemption even of priests from being recalled to his service. (13) Veiled virgins who marry are not to be admitted even to penance till the husband's death; but (14) such as have promised virginity, but have not been "veiled by the priest," may be reconciled after penance. In 405 Innocent was similarly consulted by another bp. of Gaul, Exsuperius of Toulouse, whom he commends for referring doubtful questions to the apostolic see, and gives him the following directions: (1) Priests or deacons who cohabit with their wives are to be deprived, as pope Siricius had directed. The prohibition of conjugal intercourse to the priests in O.T. before officiating is adduced as before; also St. Paul's injunction to the Corinthian laity to abstain for a time, that they might give themselves unto prayer; whence it follows that the clergy, to whom prayer and sacrifice is a continual duty, ought always to abstain. When St. Paul said that a bishop was to be the husband of one wife, he did not mean that he was to live with her, else he would not have said, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God"; and he said "having children," not "begetting" them. The incontinence of clergy whom the injunction of pope Siricius had not reached may, however, be condoned; but they are not to be promoted to any higher order. (2) To the question whether such as had led continually loose lives after baptism might be admitted to penance and communion at the approach of death, Innocent replies that, though in former times penance only and not communion was accorded in such cases, the strict rule may now be relaxed, and both given. (3) Baptized Christians are not precluded from inflicting torture or condemning to death as judges, nor from suing as advocates for judgment in a capital case. Innocent, however, elsewhere precludes Christians who had been so engaged from ordination (Ep. xxvii. ad Felicem ). (4) To the question how it was that adultery in a wife was more severely visited than in a husband, it is replied that the cause was the unwillingness of wives to accuse their husbands, and the difficulty of convicting the latter of transgression, not that adultery was more criminal in one case than in the other. (5) Divorced persons who marry again during the life of their first consort and those who marry them are adulterers, and to be excommunicated, but not their parents or relations, unless accessory. Lastly, a list is given of the canonical books of Scripture, the same as are now received by the church of Rome; while certain books, bearing the names of Matthias, James the Less, Peter, John, and Thomas, are repudiated and condemned. (iii) Spain. —In 400 had been held the first council of Toledo, mainly to deal with Priscillianists returning to the church. Two such bishops, Symphorius and Dichtynius, with others, had been received by the council; but certain bishops of Baetica still refused to communicate with them. A Spanish bishop, Hilary, who had subscribed the decree of the council of Toledo, went with a priest, Elpidius, to Rome, to represent this to the pope; complaining also of two bishops, Rufinus and Minicius, who had ordained other bishops out of their own province without the knowledge of the metropolitan; and of other prevalent irregularities with respect to ordinations. The complainants do not appear to have been commissioned by any synod, or other authority of the Spanish church, to lay these matters before the pope, but Innocent took the opportunity to address a letter, after a synod held at Rome, to the bishops of the Toledo council, advising or directing them; though without asserting, as he does to other churches, the authority of the Roman see. He condemns those who refused to communicate with reconciled Priscillianists, and directs the bishops to inquire into the cases of Rufinus and Minicius and to enforce the canons. As to other prevalent irregularities—such as the ordination of persons who had, after baptism, pleaded as advocates, served in the army, or as courtiers (curiales ) been concerned in objectionable ceremonies or entertainments—he directs that such past irregularities should be condoned for fear of scandal and disturbance, but avoided in the future. He insists, as so often in his letters, on the incapacity for ordination of such as had married widows or had married twice, and again protests that baptism cannot annul the obligation of a previous marriage. He supports these prohibitions by arguments from O.T. and from St. Paul, "Husband of one wife" (Ep. iii. Bibl. Patr. Galland.). We do not know how this admonitory letter was received in Spain. (iv) Africa. —In 412 or 413 Innocent wrote to Aurelius, bp. of Carthage, requesting him to announce in synod the day for keeping Easter in 414, with the view of its being announced, as was then customary, to the church by the bp. of Rome (Ep. xiv. Galland.). Towards the end of 416 he received synodal letters from councils at Carthage and Milevis in Numidia, and from St. Augustine (who had taken part in the latter council), with four other bishops, on the Pelagian controversy; to all of which he replied in Jan. 417. This correspondence illustrates the relations then subsisting between the West African church and Rome. (For such relations at an early period see STEPHANUS; CYPRIANUS; SIXTUS II.) The synodal letters inform Innocent of the renewal of the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius pronounced five years previously at Carthage, and very respectfully request him to add the authority of the apostolical see to the decrees of their mediocrity ("ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis auctoritas adhibeatur"); setting forth the heresies condemned, and arguments against them. They recognize the weight that the pope's approval would carry, but do not at all imply that the validity of their own condemnation depended on it. The five bishops imply some doubt as to his probable action, having heard that there were some in Rome who favoured the heretic; and they await the result with suspense, fear, and trembling. Innocent, in replying, assumes much greater dependence on the see of Rome on the part of the Africans than their language had implied, and asserts very large claims to general authority. He commends the bishops of the Carthaginian synod for referring the matter to his judgment, as knowing what was due to the see of the apostle from whom all episcopal authority was derived; and for having observed the decrees of the Fathers, resting on divine authority, according to which nothing done, even in remote and separated provinces, was to be considered settled till it had come to the knowledge of the Roman see and been confirmed by its authority, that all waters proceeding from the fountain of their birth, the pure streams of the uncorrupted head, might flow through the different regions of the whole world. The abundant stream of Rome, flowing, the bishops hoped, from the same fountainhead as the smaller stream of Africa, becomes in Innocent the fountain-head from which all streams must flow. He addresses the bishops of the Milevetan synod in the same strain. He then proceeds to condemn the Pelagian heresy in strong terms and to anathematize all its abettors and supporters. To adduce proofs, he says, is unnecessary, since his correspondents had said all that was wanted. He declines to accede to their suggestion that he should make overtures to Pelagius, or send for him to Rome. It is for the heretical, he says, to come to me of his own accord, if ready to retract his errors; if not ready, he would not obey my summons; if he should come, repudiate, his heresy, and ask pardon, he will be received ( Epp. Augustine, xc.–xcv.; Epp. Innoc. clxxxi.–clxxxiii. Galland.). In a letter to Decentius, bp. of Eugubium in Umbria (dated a.d. 416), the claims of the Roman see are no less strongly asserted than in the letters to the African bishops. Innocent tells him that no one can be ignorant of the obligation of all to observe the traditions, and those alone, which the Roman church had received from St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and which that church ever preserved—especially as no churches had been founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the interjacent islands, except by St. Peter or his successors. The letter proceeds to require observance of various Roman usages. (1) The pax in the Eucharist must be given after communion, not before. (2) The names of such as offer oblations at the Eucharist are not to be recited by the priest before the sacrifice, or the canon. (3) Infants after baptism may not be confirmed by unction except by the bishop; but priests may anoint other parts of the body than the forehead, using oil blessed by the bishop. (4) Saturday as well as Friday in each week is to be observed as a fast, in commemoration of the whole time Christ was in the grave. (5) Demoniacs may receive imposition of hands from priests or other clergy commissioned by the bishop. (6) St. James's direction that the sick are to call for the elders of the church does not preclude the bishop from administering the unction; but not only priests, but any Christian may anoint, using chrism prepared by the bishop. Penitents, however, to whom the other sacraments are denied, may not receive unction, "quia genus sacramenti est." It appears plain from the way the unction of the sick is spoken of that it was then used with a view to recovery, not as a last rite. (7) One Roman custom, that of sending, on the Lord's day, the Eucharist consecrated by the bishop to the presbyters throughout the city, that all on that day at least may partake of one communion, is not to be observed where it involved carrying the sacrament to great distances. Even in Rome it is not taken to the priests in the various cemeteries ( Epp. xxv. Galland.). II. EAST.—In 404 Innocent began to intervene in the affairs of the East in the matter of St. Chrysostom, who had been deposed and driven from Constantinople after the synod of the Oak in 403, and finally expelled on June 20, 404. A letter reached Innocent from Chrysostom himself, another from the 40 bishops who remained in his communion, a third from his clergy. That from Chrysostom (given by Palladius in his Dialogus de Vita S. Johan. Chrysost. ) was addressed to the bps. of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan, as the three great bishops of the West. It requests them to protest against what had been done, and to continue in communion with the writer. To all these letters Innocent replied that, while still in communion with both parties, he reprobated the past proceedings as irregular, and proposed a council of Easterns and Westerns, from which avowed friends and enemies of the accused should be excluded. A second letter arrived from Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, with the Acts of the synod of the Oak, shewing that Chrysostom had been condemned by 36 bishops, of whom 29 were Egyptians. Innocent's brief reply, is that he cannot renounce communion with Chrysostom on the strength of the past futile proceedings and demands that Theophilus should proffer his charges before a proper council, according to the Nicene canons. Communications from Constantinople continued to reach Innocent, one from about 25 bishops of Chrysostom's party, informing him of Chrysostom's banishment to Cucusus and the burning of his cathedral church. To them and to the banished prelate the pope sent letters of communion, being unable to render help. Cruel persecution of the friends of Chrysostom, set afoot by the Eastern emperor Arcadius, brought a number of letters to Rome from oppressed bishops and clergy, and the resort thither of many in person, including Anysius of Thessalonica, Palladius of Helenopolis (the author of the Dialogus de Vit. S. Johan. Chrysost. ), and Cassianus, famous afterwards as a monk and a writer. Innocent represented the matter to the emperor Honorius, who wrote thrice to his brother Arcadius on the subject. His third letter, sent under the advice of a synod assembled by the pope at his request, urged the assembling of a combined council of Easterns and Westerns at Thessalonica. He desired Innocent to appoint five bishops, two priests, and one deacon as a deputation from the Western church; and these he charged with this third letter, in which he requested his brother to summon the Oriental bishops. He also sent letters addressed to himself by the bishops of Rome and Aquileia, as specimens of many so addressed, and as representing the opinion of the Western bishops on the question at issue (Innoc. Ep. ix. Galland.; Pallad. Dialog. c. iii.). The deputation was accompanied by four Eastern bishops who had fled to Rome. It failed entirely. Persecution was continued in the East; Honorius contemplated a war against his brother, but was deterred by a threatened invasion of the Goths; and Innocent, failing in his attempt to bring about an impartial council, separated himself from the communion of Atticus, Theophilus, and Porphyrius. This appeal of St. Chrysostom and his friends involved no acknowledgment of any authority of the Roman bishop over the Eastern church. They apply to him not as a superior or a judge, but as a powerful friend whose support they solicit. Chrysostom's letter, which in Roman editions appears as addressed to the pope alone, was really written to the three principal bishops of the West. Its contents leave no doubt of this. Honorius, in his letters to his brother, speaks of the Western bishops generally having been applied to, and quotes their views as of equal moment with that of the bishops of Rome. Innocent in his replies makes no claim to adjudicate, nor does he make any assertion of the universal supremacy of his see, such as appears in his letters to the Africans and to Decentius, but recommends a council of Easterns and Westerns as the proper authoritative tribunal. For a view of papal claims over the East less than a century later see FELIX III. and ACACIUS (7). After the death of Chrysostom the pope and all the West remained for some time out of communion with Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. The church of Antioch was the first to be reconciled, when bp. Alexander in 413 replaced the name of Chrysostom in the diptychs of his church, and sent a legation to Rome to sue for restoration of communion. This was cordially granted in a synodal letter signed by 20 Italian bishops. Innocent wrote to Alexander congratulating him warmly and desiring a frequent interchange of letters. At the same time Acacius of Beroea, one of Chrysostom's bitterest opponents, was received into communion by Innocent through Alexander, to whom the letter of communion was sent for transmission. Atticus of Constantinople was reconciled a few years later. Moved partly by the threatening attitude of the populace, and partly by the advice of the emperor, he consented, with a bad grace, to place Chrysostom's name on the diptychs, and was received into communion. The church of Alexandria was the last to come to terms. Theophilus's nephew Cyril, succeeding him Oct. 18, 412, was urged by Atticus to yield, and did so at last, though not till 417, ten years after the death of Chrysostom. Throughout Innocent appears to have acted with dignity, fairness, firmness, and moderation. Alexander having, later, consulted the pope as to the jurisdiction of his patriarchal see of Antioch, Innocent replied that in accordance with the canons of Nice (Can. vi.) the authority of the bp. of Antioch extended over the whole diocese, not only over one province. Diocese is here used, in its original sense, to denote a civil division of the empire comprising many provinces. The Oriental diocese here referred to included 15 provinces, over the metropolitans of which the patriarchal jurisdiction of Antioch is alleged to extend. Two more letters, written in the last year of his life, further illustrate Innocent's attitude towards the churches of the East. St. Jerome had been attacked in his cell at Bethlehem by a band of ruffians and had narrowly escaped; the two noble virgins, Eustochium and her niece Paula, living in retirement under his spiritual direction, had been driven from their house, which had been burnt, and some of their attendants killed. The party of Pelagius was suspected. Innocent wrote to Jerome, offering to exert "the whole authority. of the apostolic see" against the offenders, if they could be discovered, and to appoint judges to try them; and to John, bp. of Jerusalem, who was no friend to Jerome, in an authoritative tone, reproving him severely for allowing such atrocities within his jurisdiction (Epp. xxxiv. xxxv. Galland.). III. ALARIC.—There were three Gothic invasions of Italy—the first under Alaric, the second under Radagaisus, the third led by Alaric himself, who laid siege to Rome a.d. 408. Innocent was within the city, the emperor at Ravenna. Famine and plague having ensued during the siege, Zosimus, the heathen historian, alleges that Pompeianus, the prefect of the city, having been persuaded by certain Etruscan diviners that their spells and sacrifices, performed on the Capitol, could draw down lightnings against the enemy, Innocent was consulted and consented, but the majority of the senators refused (v. 40). Sozomen mentions the circumstance but does not implicate Innocent (ix. 6). It seems highly improbable that Innocent would sanction such rites of heathenism. In 409 the offer of a ransom led Alaric to raise the siege, and two deputations were sent to the emperor at Ravenna to induce him to sanction the terms agreed on. The first having failed, Innocent accompanied the second, and thus was not in the city when it was finally taken on Aug. 24, 410. Alaric's invasion was regarded as a judgment on heathen rather than Christian Rome, and as a vindication of the church, the pope's providential absence being compared by Orosius to the saving of Lot from Sodom. Undoubtedly the event was a marked one in the supersession of heathenism by Christianity. The destruction of the old temples, never afterwards restored, the dispersion and ruin of families which clung most to the old order, the view that judgment had fallen on old heathen Rome, which its deities had been powerless to protect, all helped to complete the triumph of the church and to add importance to the reign of Innocent. Soon after this great event Augustine (a.d. 413) began his famous work, de Civitate Dei , though he took 13 years to complete it, in which he sees a vision of the kingdom of God rising on the ruins of the kingdom of the world—a vision which gradually took more distinct shape in the idea already more or less grasped by Innocent, of a Catholic Christendom united under the Roman see. Innocent's Epistolae et Decreta are printed in Galland's Bibl. Pat. t. viii. and in Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xx. Cf. Innocent the Great by C. H. C. Pirie-Gordon (Longmans; 4 maps and 8 genealogical tables). ^[2]

Alt. of Rome scot

See Peter pence, under Peter.

Clemens Romanus. According to common tradition, one of the first, if not the first, bp. of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a leading member of that church towards the end of the 1st cent. (1) Among the most authentic proofs of the connexion of Clement with the Roman church is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The early Christians on the death of a bishop did not discontinue the mention of his name in their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon of the Mass to this day, next after the names of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and there is some evidence that the liturgy contained the same names in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; Probably, then, this commemoration dates from Clement's own time. (2) An independent proof that Clement held high position in the church of Rome is afforded by the Shepherd of Hermas, a work not later than the episcopate of Pius (a.d. 141–156), the writer of which claims to have been contemporary with Clement. He represents himself as commissioned to write for Clement the book of his Visions in order that Clement might send it to foreign cities, that being his function; while Hermas himself was to read the Vision at Rome with the elders who presided over the church. Thus Clement is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches; but the passage does not decide whether or not Clement was superior to other presbyters in the domestic government of the church. (3) Next in antiquity among the notices of Clement is the general ascription to him of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly known as Clement's first epistle. This is written in the name of the church of Rome, and neither in the address nor in the body of the letter contains Clement's name, yet he seems to have been from the first everywhere recognized as its author. We may not unreasonably infer from the passage just cited from Hermas that the letter was even then celebrated. About a.d. 170 it is expressly mentioned by Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, acknowledging another letter written from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth by their then bp. Soter, states that their former letter written by Clement was still read from time to time in their Sunday assemblies. Eusebius ( H. E. iii. 16) speaks of this public reading of Clement's epistle as the ancient custom of very many churches down to his own time. In the same place (and in H. E. iv. 22) he reports that Hegesippus, whose historical work was written in the episcopate next after Soter's, and who had previously visited both Rome and Corinth, gives particulars concerning the epistle of Clement, and concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian church which had given rise to it. The epistle is cited as Clement's by Irenaeus ( adv. Haer. iii. 3), several times by Clement of Alex., who in one place gives his namesake the title of Apostle ( Strom. i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 8); by Origen ( de Princip. ii. 3, in Ezech. 8, in Joan. i. 29); and in fact on this subject the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A letter which did not bear Clement's name, and which merely purported to come from the church of Rome, could scarcely have been generally known as Clement's, if Clement had not been known at the time as holding the chief position in the church of Rome. (4) Last among those notices of Clement which may be relied on as historical, we place the statement of Irenaeus (l.c. ) that Clement was third bp. of Rome after the apostles, his account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up that church, committed the charge of it to Linus; that Linus was succeeded by Anencletus, and he by Clement. This order is adopted by Eusebius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by Eastern chronologers generally. A different order of placing these bishops can also, however, lay claim to high antiquity. The ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, because ending with the episcopate of Liberius, gives the order, and duration of the first Roman episcopates: Peter 25 years, 1 month, 9 days; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days; Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days; Cletus 6 years, 2 months, 10 days; Anacletus 12 years, 10 months, 3 days: thus Anacletus, who in the earlier list comes before Clement, is replaced by two bishops, Cletus and Anacletus, who come after him; and this account is repeated in other derived catalogues. Irenaeus himself is not consistent in reckoning the Roman bishops. ^[1] The order, Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augustine (Ep. 53 ad Generosum ) and by Optatus of Milevis (de Schism. Donatist. ii. 2). Tertullian ( de Praescrip. c. 32) states that the church of Rome held Clement to have been ordained by Peter; and Jerome ( Cat. Scr. Ecc. 15), while adopting the order of Irenaeus, mentions that most Latins then counted Clement to have been second after Peter, and himself seems to adopt this reckoning in his commentary on Isaiah (c. 52). The Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) represent Linus to have been first ordained by Paul, and afterwards, on the death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epiphanius ( Haer. xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the charge of the church to others. This solution is adopted by Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius has an alternative solution, founded on a conjecture which he tries to support by a reference to a passage in Clement's epistle, viz. that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave's hypothesis that Linus and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gentile Christians; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman church. Still later it has been argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the 1st cent. there was no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another. The authorities, however, which differ from the account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce themselves to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest is the letter of Clement to James ^[2] giving an account of Clement's ordination by Peter; for it seems to have been plainly the acceptance of this ordination as historical which inspired the desire to correct a list of bishops which placed Clement at a distance of three from Peter. The other authority is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, pub. a.d. 235 (see Chronicon Canisianum in D. C. B. 4-vol. ed., and the memoir of Mommsen there cited), for it has been satisfactorily shewn that the earlier part of the Liberian catalogue is derived from the list of Roman bishops in this work. The confusion of later writers arises from attempts to reconcile conflicting authorities, all of which seemed deserving of confidence: viz. (1) the list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, giving merely a succession of Roman bishops; (2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession in somewhat different order and also the years of the duration of the episcopates; and (3) the letter to James relating the ordination of Clement by Peter. The main question, then, is, which is more entitled to confidence, the order of Irenaeus or of Hippolytus? and we have no hesitation in accepting the former. First, because it is distinctly the more ancient; secondly, because if the earlier tradition had not placed the undistinguished name Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later writer would have reversed its order; thirdly, because of the testimony of the liturgy. Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific chronologer in the Roman church, his authority there naturally ranked very high, and his order of the succession seems to have been generally accepted in the West for a considerable time. Any commemoration, therefore, introduced into the liturgy after his time would have followed his order, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would have left out the obscure name Cletus altogether. We conclude, then, that the commemoration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, had been introduced before the time of Hippolytus, and was by then so firmly established that even the contradictory result arrived at by Hippolytus (because he accepted as historically true the ordination of Clement by Peter as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter it. The Recognitions are cited by Origen, the contemporary of Hippolytus; and the account which their preface gives of Clement's ordination seems to have been fully believed by the Roman church. The death of Clement and the consequent accession of Evaristus is dated by Eusebius in his Chronicle a.d. 95, and in his Church History the third year of Trajan, a.d. 100. According to the chronology of the Liberian Catalogue, the accession of Evaristus is dated a.d. 95. Now no one dates the death of Peter later than the persecution of Nero, a.d. 67. If, therefore, Clement was ordained by Peter, and if we retain the order of Irenaeus, Clement had an episcopate of about 30 years, a length far greater than any tradition suggests. Hippolytus, probably following the then received account of the length of Clement's episcopate, has placed it a.d. 67–76; and, seeing the above difficulty, has filled the space between Clement and Evaristus by transposing Cletus and, as the gap seemed too large to be filled by one episcopate, by counting as distinct the Cletus of the liturgy and the Anacletus of the earlier catalogue. Apparently it was Hippolytus who devised the theory stated in the Apostolic Constitutions, that Linus held the bishopric during the lifetime of Peter; for this seems to be the interpretation of the dates assigned in the Liberian Catalogue, Peter 30–55, Linus 55–67. But the whole ground of these speculations is removed if we reject the tale of Clement's ordination by Peter; if for no other reason, on account of the chronological confusion which it causes. Thus we retain the order of Irenaeus, accounting that of Hippolytus as an arbitrary transposition to meet a chronological difficulty. The time that we are thus led to assign to the activity of Clement, viz. the end of Domitian's reign, coincides with that which Eusebius, apparently on the authority of Hegesippus, assigns to Clement's epistle, and with that which an examination of the letter itself suggests (see below). The result thus arrived at casts great doubt on the identification of the Roman Clement with the Clement named Php_4:3. This identification is unhesitatingly made by Origen (in Joann. i. 29) and a host of later writers. Irenaeus also may have had this passage in mind when he speaks of Clement as a hearer of the apostles though probably he was principally influenced by the work which afterwards grew into the Recognitions. But though it is not actually impossible that the Clement who held a leading position in the church of Philippi during Paul's imprisonment might thirty years afterwards have presided over the church of Rome yet the difference of time and place deprives of all likelihood an identification merely based upon a very common name. Lightfoot has remarked that Tacitus for instance mentions five Clements (Ann. i. 23 ii. 39 xv. 73; Hist. i. 86 iv. 68). Far more plausibly it has been proposed to identify the author of the epistle with another Clement who was almost certainly at the time a distinguished member of the Roman church. We learn from Suetonius (Domit. 15) and from Dio Cassius lxvii. 14 that in 95 the very year fixed by some for the death of bp. Clement death or banishment was inflicted by Domitian on several persons addicted to Jewish customs and amongst them Flavius Clemens a relation of his own whose consulship had but just expired was put to death on a charge of atheism while his wife Domitilla also a member of the emperor's family was banished. The language is such as heathen writers might naturally use to describe a persecution of Christians; but Eusebius (H. E. iii. 13) expressly claims one Domitilla a niece of the consul's as a sufferer for Christ; and (Chron. sub anno 95) cites the heathen historian Bruttius as stating that several Christians suffered martyrdom at this time. If then the consul Clement was a Christian martyr his rank would give him during his life a foremost position in the Roman church. It is natural to think that the writer of the epistle may have been either the consul or a member of his family. Yet if so the traditions of the Roman church must have been singularly defective. No writer before Rufinus speaks of bp. Clement as a martyr; nor does any ancient writer in any way connect him with the consul. In the Recognitions Clement is represented as a relation of the emperor; not however of Domitian but of Tiberius. A fabulous account of Clement's martyrdom probably of no earlier origin than the 9th cent. tells how Clement was first banished to the Crimea worked there such miracles as converted the whole district and was thereupon by Trajan's order cast into the sea with an anchor round his neck an event followed by new prodigies. The only genuine work of Clement is the Ep. to the Corinthians already mentioned. Its main object is to restore harmony to the Corinthian church, which had been disturbed by questions apparently concerning discipline rather than doctrine. The bulk of the letter is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, humility, submission to lawful authority, and but little attempt is made at the refutation of doctrinal error. Some pains, it is true, are taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrection; but this subject is not connected by the writer with the disputes, and so much use is made of Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians that we cannot lay much stress on the fact that one of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. The dissensions are said to have been caused by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons who led a revolt against the authority of the presbyters. Their pride probably rested on their possession of spiritual gifts, and perhaps on the chastity which they practised. Though pains are taken to shew the necessity of a distinction of orders, we cannot infer that this was really questioned by the revolters; for the charge against them, that they had unwarrantably deposed from the office of presbyter certain who had filled it blamelessly, implies that the office continued to be recognized by them. But this unauthorized deposition naturally led to a schism, and representations made at Rome by some of the persons ill-treated may have led to the letter of Clement. It is just possible that we can name one of these persons. At the end of the letter a wish is expressed that the messengers of the Roman church, Ephebus and Bito, with Fortunatus also, might be sent back speedily with tidings of restored harmony. The form of expression distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman delegates favours the supposition that he was a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those who had been the cause of dissension to withdraw for peace' sake, it is possible that Fortunatus might have so withdrawn and found a welcome at Rome. Another conjecture identifies him with the Fortunatus mentioned in St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians. However precarious this identification may be, internal evidence shews that the epistle is not so far from apostolic times as to make it impossible. None of the apostles are spoken of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, described as men of their own generation, are referred to as then recent, and some of the presbyters appointed by the apostles are spoken of as still surviving. The early date thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal development on certain points. Thus "bishop" and "presbyter" are, as in N.T., used convertibly, and there is no trace that in the church of Corinth one presbyter had any very pronounced authority over the rest. The deposition of certain presbyters is not spoken of as usurpation of the authority of any single person, but of that of the whole body of presbyters. Again, to the writer the "Scriptures" are the books of the O.T.; these he cites most copiously and uses to enforce his arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians; and twice reminds his hearers of words of our Lord. The way in which he uses the quotations implies the existence of written records recognized by both parties. Besides these, without any formal citation he makes unmistakable use of other N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. and other Pauline, including the Pastoral epistles, Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, their authority is not appealed to in the same manner as is that of the O.T. It may be mentioned here that Clement's epistle contains the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or interpolations not now extant. To fix more closely the date of the epistle, the principal fact available is, that in the opening an apology is made that the church of Rome had not been able to give earlier attention to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the sudden and repeated calamities which had befallen it. It is generally agreed that this must refer to the persecution under either Nero or Domitian. A date about midway between these is that to which the phenomena of the epistle would have inclined us; but having to choose between these two we have no hesitation in preferring the latter. The main argument in favour of the earlier date, that the temple service is spoken of as being still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occurrence of a quite similar use of the present tense in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully considered, suggests the opposite inference; for Clement would Judaize to an extent of which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, if, in case the temple rites were being still celebrated, he were to speak of them as the appointed and acceptable way of serving God. All the other notes of time are difficult to reconcile with a date so close to the apostles as the reign of Nero. As to whether the writer was a Jew or a Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely decisive; but it seems more conceivable that a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have acquired the knowledge of Roman history and heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, than that one not familiar from his childhood with the O.T. could possess so intimate an acquaintance with it. This consideration, of course, bears on the question whether Flavius Clemens could have written the letter. The letter does not yield any support to the theory of 1st cent. disputes between a Pauline and an anti-Pauline party in the church. No such disputes appear in the dissensions at Corinth; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish sections of the church seem in Clement's time to be completely fused. The obligation on Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not seem a matter of concern. The whole Christian community is regarded as the inheritor of the promises to the Jewish people. Clement holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest (and equal) honour. The epistle was known until 1875 only through a single MS., the great Alexandrian MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an account is given in all works on the criticism of the N.T. One leaf, containing about the tenth part of the whole letter, has been lost. In this Greek Bible of the 5th cent. the two letters of Clement to the Corinthians are books enumerated among N.T., not with the apostolic epistles, but after the Apocalypse. Hence the ecclesiastical use of Clement's letter had probably not ceased when this MS. was copied. The ep. was first ed. by Patrick Young (Oxf. 1633), and often since, among the most important edd. being Cotelier's in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 1672); Jacobson's; Hilgenfeld's in his N.T. extra Canonem Receptum ; Lightfoot's (Camb. 1869, and in his great ed. of the Apostolic Fathers, 1890); Tischendorf's (Leipz. 1873); and Gebhardt and Harnack's (Leipz. 1875). A photograph of this portion of the MS. was pub. by Sir. F. Madden in 1856. An Eng. trans. of the ep. (and of those on Virginity ) is in the Lib. of Ante-Nicene Fathers. An entirely new authority for the text of the epistle was gained by the discovery in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmutilated text of the two epistles ascribed to Clement. The new authority was announced, and first used in establishing the text, in a very careful and able ed. of the epp. by Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae, pub. in Constantinople at the end of 1875. The MS., which is cursive and dated a.d. 1056, is contained in a small octavo volume, 7 ½ inches by 6, which has, besides the Epp. of Clement, Chrysostom's synopsis of the O.T., the Ep. of Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (occupying in the MS. less space by one fourth than the second Ep. of Cement), and a collection of Ignatian epistles. It gives a very good text of the Clementine letters, independent of the Alexandrian MS., but, on the whole, in tolerably close agreement with it, even in passages where the best critics had suspected error. Besides filling up small lacunae in the text of the older MS., it supplies the contents of the entire leaf which had been lost. This part contains a passage quoted by Basil, but not another quoted by Pseudo-Justin, confirmed in some degree by Irenaeus, which had been referred to this place (see Lightfoot, p. 166). Except for trifling omissions we must have the letter now as complete as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS. For Harnack; on counting the letters in the recovered portion, found that they amounted almost exactly to the average contents of a leaf of the older MS. Lightfoot has pointed out that by a small change in the text of Ps.-Justin, his reference is satisfied by a passage in the newly discovered conclusion of the second epistle. The new portion of the first principally consists of a prayer, possibly founded on the liturgical use of the Roman church. What has been said in the beginning of the letter as to the calamities under which that church had suffered is illustrated by some of the petitions, and prayer is made for their earthly rulers and that they themselves might submit to them, recognizing the honour given them by God, and not opposing His will. Very noticeable in this new part of the letter is the tone of authority used in making an unsolicited interference with the affairs of another church. "If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in transgression, and no small danger, but we shall be clear from this sin." "You will cause us joy and exultation if, obeying the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, you cut out the lawless passion of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. But we have sent faithful and discreet men who have walked from youth to old age unblameably amongst us, who shall be witnesses between us and you. This have we done that you may know that all our care has been and is that you may speedily be at peace." It remains open for controversy how far the expressions quoted indicate official superiority of the Roman church, or only the writer's conviction of the goodness of their cause. We may add that the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the epistle ἱκανωτάτη proves to have been suggested by a phrase in the letter itself, ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν . Lightfoot gives references to a succession of writers who have quoted the epistle. Polycarp, though not formally quoting Clement's epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius's epistle to Polycarp, c. 5, may also be set down as derived from Clement, but other parallels collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubtful. The epistle does not seem to have been translated into Latin, and was consequently little known in the West. For some of the spurious works ascribed to Clement see Clementine Literature. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. —This letter also formed part of the Alexandrian MS., but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. We now have it complete in the edition of Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older MS. it is marked as Clement's second epistle, but not expressly described as to the Corinthians. It is so described in the later MS. It is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius, and the language used by some of them is inconsistent with their having accepted it. Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed to Clement, but not, like the former, used by the older writers, and he only speaks of one as the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two epistles are placed among the books of the N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which probably belongs to the 6th cent. The second epistle is first expressly cited as to the Corinthians by Severus of Antioch early in the same cent. Internal evidence, though adverse to Clementine authorship, assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd cent., and probably the first half of it. The writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts himself and his readers with the Jewish nation in a manner quite unlike the genuine Clement; and his quotations are not, like Clement's, almost exclusively from O.T.; the gospel history is largely cited, and once under the name of Scripture. Many of the quotations, however, differ from our canonical gospels, and since one of them agrees with a passage referred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel of the Egyptians, this was probably the source of other quotations also. The epistle would seem from this to be earlier than the close of the 2nd cent., at which time our four gospels were in a position of exclusive authority. The controversies with which the writer deals are those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In language suggested by the Ep. to the Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as created before the sun and moon, as the female of whom Christ is the male, the body of which he is the soul. It seems likely that a work using such language had gained its acceptance with the church before Gnostic theories concerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia had brought discredit upon such speculations. The doctrine of the pre-existence of the church is, as Harnack noted, one of several points of contact between this work and the Shepherd of Hermas, making it probable that both emanate from the same age and the same circle. We therefore refer the place of composition to Rome, notwithstanding an apparent reference to the Isthmian games which favours a connexion with Corinth. The description of the work as an Ep. to the Corinthians, never strongly supported by external evidence, is disproved by the newly discovered conclusion, whence it clearly appears that the work is, as Dodwell and others had supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It professes, and there seems no reason to doubt it, to have been composed to be publicly read in church, and therefore the writer's position in the church was one which would secure that use of his work. But he does not claim any position of superiority, and the foremost place in ruling and teaching the church is attributed to the body of presbyters. He nowhere claims to be Clement. But it is not strange that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early document of the Roman church should come to be ascribed to the universally acknowledged author of the earliest document of that church; nor that when both had come to be received as Clement's, the second should come to be regarded as, like the first, an epistle to the Corinthians. The Two Epistles on Virginity. —These are extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. purchased at Aleppo c. a.d. 1750, for Wetstein. He had commissioned a copy of the Philoxenian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this MS. proved to be only a copy of the well-known Peshito. But the disappointment was compensated by the unexpected discovery of these letters, till then absolutely unknown in the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a doxology, and a note with personal details by which we can date the MS. a.d. 1470, and then proceeds, "We subjoin to the epistles of Paul those epistles of the apostles, which are not found in all the copies," on which follow II. Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Philoxenian version, and then, without any break, these letters, with the titles: "The first epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the apostle," and "The second epistle of the same Clement." The MS. is now preserved in the library of the Seminary of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters were published, as an appendix to his Greek Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen (Louvain, 1856 ). The letters, though now only extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms to be a translation from the Greek, and by the existence of a fragment containing an apparently different Syriac translation of one passage in them. This fragment is contained in a MS. bearing the date a.d. 562. The earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epiphanius. In a passage, which until the discovery of the Syriac letters had been felt as perplexing, he describes Clement as "in the encyclical letters which he wrote, and which are read in the holy churches," having taught virginity, and praised Elias and David and Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to the Corinthians cannot be described as encyclical; and the topics specified are not treated of in them, while they are dwelt on in the Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet must be understood as referring to the letters on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian where he speaks of Clement as composing almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. He may have become acquainted with these letters during his residence in Palestine. The presumption against their genuineness, arising from the absence of notice of them by Eusebius and every other writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the limited circulation which they appear ever to have attained in the church, is absolutely confirmed by internal evidence. Their style and whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the genuine epistle; and the writer is evidently one whose thoughts and language have been moulded by long and early acquaintance with N.T., in the same manner as those of the real Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. The Gospel of St. John is more than once cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. Competent judges have assigned these epistles to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their arguments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat later date. The Epistles to James our Lord's Brother. —In the article Clementine Literature is given an account of the letter to James by Clement, which relates how Peter, in immediate anticipation of death, ordained Clement as his successor, and gave him charge concerning his ministry. After the trans. of this letter by Rufinus, some Latin writer added a second, giving instruction as to the administration of the Eucharist and church discipline. These two letters had considerable currency in the West. In the forged decretals both were much enlarged, and 3 new letters purporting to be Clement's added. James is in the original Clementines the head of the church, but in the later epistle receives instruction and commands from Peter's successor Clement. There must have been yet other letters ascribed to Clement in the East if there be no error in the MS. of Leonti

Cletus or Anacletus, "le même que St. Clet, comme les savants en conviennent" ( L’Art de vérif. les dates , i. 218). Eusebius calls him Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth year of Domitian, having himself sat there twelve years. According to this, his own consecration would have fallen in the first year of Domitian, or a.d. 81; but it is variously dated by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of Rome: yet he places him between Linus, whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, whom he calls third. Other ancient authorities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, F. R. ii. 399). Rohrbacher, on the strength of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and another pope named Anencletus after Cletus ( E. H. iv. 450). This Gieseler calls "the modern Roman view." ^[1] Three spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collection (Migne, Patr. cxxx. 59 and seq.). ^[2]

Coelestinus, commonly called Celestine, 42nd bp. of Rome, succeeded Boniface I. on Sunday, Sept. 10, 422, without any delay or contest. He was of Roman birth, the son of Priscus. In early life he had visited Milan during the episcopate of St. Ambrose. While deacon to Innocent, he had written a cordial letter to St. Augustine, who returned a suitable reply (Aug. Ep. 192). Soon after his accession to the see of Rome, Celestine received a letter from Augustine ( Ep. 209) on the case of one Antony, bp. of Fussala, 40 miles from Hippo, who had gravely misconducted himself in his office, been compelled by a synod of bishops to leave Fussala, and had afterwards applied to Boniface for restoration. Augustine entreated Celestine not to impose on the people of Fussala, by aid of secular power, a prelate so unworthy. After this, the African bishops resolved no longer to allow appeals to Rome from their country; and when Celestine, apparently in 426, wrote to them in behalf of the priest Apiarius, a general council of Africa sent a reply begging Celestine to observe the Nicene rule (Song of Solomon 5) and not receive to communion those excommunicated by them. The African church thus claimed its right to decide its own causes. They pointed out that the Nicene council had ordered that all causes should be decided where they arose; nor could anyone "believe that our God will inspire a single individual with justice, and deny it to a large number of bishops sitting in council." That persons should be sent from Rome to decide causes in Africa had been "ordained by no synod"; and they had proved to Celestine's predecessor, by authentic copies of Nicene canons, that such a claim was wholly baseless ( Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. ad. fin.; Galland, Bibl. Patr. ix. 289). Celestine was zealous against Pelagianism, and constrained Coelestius, the companion of Pelagius, to leave Italy. The affairs of eastern Illyricum occupied the attention of Celestine, as of his predecessors. This civil "diocese" was attached, politically, to the eastern empire; but the see of Rome had kept a hold over its churches by committing a sort of vicarial authority to the see of Thessalonica, which was its head. Thus Damasus is said to have made the bps. of Thessalonica his representatives. See Fleury, b. xviii. c. 22. Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 9, thinks this an over-statement; but at any rate, he observes, Siricius (who succeeded Damasus), and afterwards Innocent, gave a delegated authority to Anysius of Thessalonica. In a.d. 421 a collision took place between the Roman bp. Boniface and Theodosius II., who "claimed the power of transferring to the bp. of Constantinople that superintendence over the bps. of Illyricum" which Rome had entrusted to Thessalonica (Fleury, xxiv. 31). But Theodosius appears to have yielded the point; and Celestine having already "interposed" in behalf of an Illyrian bishop named Felix, who was "in peril of being crushed by factious accusers," afterwards wrote (Cel. Ephesians 3 ) to Perigenes of Corinth and eight other prelates of eastern Illyricum, asserting his right, as successor of St. Peter, to a general oversight ("necessitatem de omnibus tractandi"), and directing his "beloved brethren" to refer all causes to his deputy, Rufus of Thessalonica, and not to consecrate bishops, nor hold councils, without the sanction of that bishop. "Dominentur nobis regulae," writes Celestine, "non regulis dominemur; simus subjecti canonibus," etc. But, says Tillemont significantly, "it is difficult to see how he practised this excellent maxim"; for by the sixth Nicene canon the Illyrian bishops would be subject to their several metropolitans and provincial synods (xiv. 150). Another letter from Celestine (Ephesians 4) was addressed July 25 428 "to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne for the purpose of correcting several abuses" (Fleury xxiv. 56). Some bishops he had learned "surreptitiously" wore the philosophic "pallium," with a girdle by way of carrying out Luk_12:35. "Why not," asks Celestine "also hold lighted lamps and staves?" The text is to be understood spiritually. This sort of dress he adds may be retained by those who dwell apart; (monks) but there is no precedent for it in the case of bishops. "We ought to be distinguished from the people not by dress but by teaching; not by attire but by conduct." On other matters he comments. Some refuse to give absolution to penitents even at the hour of death: this is a barbarous "killing of the soul." Some consecrate laymen to the episcopate. Let no one be consecrated until he has gone through all degrees of the ministry: he who would be a teacher must first be a disciple. In the appointment of bishops he said that the wishes of the flock must be respected: Nullus invitis detur episcopus. These words became the recognized expression of a great principle of church law. With this letter may be compared a short one (Ephesians 5 ), written in 429, to urge the Apulian and Calabrian bishops to observe the canons, and not to gratify any popular wish for the consecration of a person who had not served in the ministry. (On this subject of per saltum consecrations, see Bingham, ii. 10, 4 seq.) In the same year (429) Germanus bp. of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes were sent into Britain to repress Pelagianism. Prosper, in his Chronicle, says that Celestine sent German to guide the Britons to Catholic faith. Constantius of Lyons, the biographer of German, whom Bede follows (H. E. i. 17), says that German and Lupus were sent by a large synod of Gallic bishops. (Prosper was then in Gaul, and ere long became Celestine's secretary: Constantius wrote some sixty years later, but with full access to local information.) The accounts may be reasonably harmonized. In German's case there was probably a special commission from Celestine, in addition to that which emanated from the Gallican synod. In this way, apparently, Celestine, as Prosper afterwards wrote in another work ( C. Collatorem , 21, al. 24), "took pains to keep the Roman island Catholic." It will be natural to consider next Celestine's proceedings in regard to Ireland, which, says Prosper, in the same sentence, he "made Christian." Two years after the expedition of German he consecrated Palladius, and sent him to "the Scots, who believed in Christ," i.e. to the Irish, "as their first bishop." Such is Prosper's statement in his Chronicle. Palladius had but little success, and stayed in Ireland but a short time; and there is no sufficient evidence for associating the mission of his great successor, St. Patrick, with Celestine or with the see of Rome. (See Todd's Life of St. Patrick , pp. 309 seq., 352, 387 etc.) We now turn to the part which Celestine took in the great doctrinal controversy raised by Nestorius at Constantinople at the end of 428. Celestine (Ep. 13) early in 429 received copies of controversial discourses said to be by Nestorius, and wrote on his own behalf, and on that of other Italian bishops, to Cyril of Alexandria, asking for information. ^[1] Cyril purposely kept silence for a year; and before he wrote, Celestine had received from Nestorius himself, by the hands of a man of high rank, named Antiochus, copies of his discourses, with a letter, in which Nestorius speaks of certain exiled Pelagians resident in Constantinople; and then passes on to the controversy about the Incarnation, and describes his opponents as Apollinarians, etc. He wrote more than once again (Mansi, iv. 1023), and another extant letter resumes the same topic. Celestine caused the Nestorian discourses to be rendered into Latin; and meanwhile received a letter from Cyril, accompanied by other translations of these documents, made at Alexandria. Thus aided, Celestine formed his own opinion on their theological character, and summoned a synod of bishops at the beginning of Aug. 430. We possess an interesting fragment of his speech on this occasion. "I remember that Ambrose of blessed memory, on the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, made the whole people sing to God with one voice— 'Veni, Redemptor gentium, Ostende partum Virginis; Miretur omne saeculum; Talis decet partus Deum '" (Ambros. Hymn 12; in Brev. Ambros. first vespers of Nativ.). "Did he say, 'Talis decet partus hominem '? So, the meaning of our brother Cyril, in that he calls Mary 'Theotokos,' entirely agrees with 'Talis decet partus Deum.' It was God Whom the Virgin, by her child-bearing, brought forth, through His power Who is full of omnipotence." He proceeded to quote a passage from Hilary, and two shorter ones from Damasus (Mansi, iv. 550; Galland, ix. 304). The council's resolutions were expressed by Celestine in letters to Cyril and to Nestorius. The former (Ep. 11) commends Cyril's zeal in a cause which is, in truth, that of "Christ our God"; and concludes by saying that unless Nestorius should, within ten days, condemn his own wicked doctrines by a written profession of the same faith, as to "the birth of Christ our God," which is held by the Roman, by the Alexandrian, by the entire church, provision must be made for the see of Constantinople as if vacant, and Nestorius must be treated as one "separate from our body." This letter was dated Aug. 11, 430. Celestine wrote also to John, bp. of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavian of Philippi, and Rufus of Thessalonica ( Ep. 12). His meaning is evident: he is not professing to act as the sole supreme judge and oracle of Christendom, or as the mouthpiece of the Catholic church; he announces his resolution, in concert with the Alexandrian church, to break off all communion with the bp. of Constantinople, unless the latter retracted his heretical sentiments. Another letter was addressed to Nestorius himself ( Ep. 13): its point is contained in the observation, "You have been warned once, twice—I now give you the third warning, according to the rule of St. Paul: if you wish to retain communion with myself and with the bp. of Alexandria, affirm what he affirms—confess our faith." Celestine also wrote ( Ep. 14) to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, exhorting the orthodox clergy to endure manfully, and to take example from St. Chrysostom and St. Athanasius. For the events which followed the council of Rome see Cyril. In Nov. 430 when Theodosius had summoned an oecumenical council to meet at Ephesus at the coming Whitsuntide and before the Roman and Alexandrian resolutions had been communicated to Nestorius the latter wrote to Celestine that the best solution would be the adoption of the word "Christotokos," although he did not object to "Theotokos," if it were used so as not to imply "a confusion of natures." In the spring of 431 Cyril wrote again to Celestine asking what should be done if Nestorius having refused to retract at the summons of Rome and Alexandria—were to retract at the coming synod. Celestine answered May 7 (Ep. 16) in a tone which exhibits him in a more favourable light than his great Alexandrian colleague "I am anxious for the salvation of him who is perishing provided that he is willing to own himself sick: if not let our previous decisions stand." Next day May 8 Celestine wrote instructions for the three persons whom he was sending to represent him at the council (Ep. 17). The substance was "When you reach Ephesus consult Cyril in everything and do what he thinks best. But if the council should be over when you arrive and Cyril gone to Constantinople (i.e. to consecrate a new bishop) you must go thither also and present to the emperor the letter which you will be charged with for him. If you find matters still unsettled you will be guided by circumstances as to the course which in conjunction with Cyril you should take." On the same day Celestine wrote the most remarkable of his letters that addressed to the council of Ephesus (Ep. 18) which was afterwards read first in Latin then in a Greek translation at the second sitting of the council (see Mansi iv. 1283). Celestine citing Mat_18:20 adds "Christ was present in the company of apostles when they taught what He had taught them. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common for by right of inheritance are we bound to undertake this solicitude. Let us act now with a common exertion that we may preserve what was entrusted to us and has been retained through succession from the apostles (per apostolicam successionem) to this very day." Celestine then insists on those recollections of the pastoral epistles which the place of the council's meeting should inspire. "Idem locus eadem causa. . . ." "Let us be unanimous let us do nothing by strife or vainglory." He reminds them of the words of St. Paul to the "episcopi" of Ephesus Act_20:28. It was on July 10 that the three deputies appeared in the council Nestorius having been deposed on June 22; the council as Firmus of Caesarea told the deputies had "followed in the track" of Celestine's previous decision; but it must be observed after a full and independent examination of the evidence. The deputies on the next day heard the "acts" of the first session read and then affirmed the sentence passed on Nestorius in that session taking care to dwell on the dignity of the see of St. Peter while Cyril was not less careful to refer to them as representing "the apostolic chair and the council of Western bishops." The council wrote to Celestine as their "fellow-minister" (Ep. 20) giving a narrative of events and saying that they had read and affirmed the sentences formerly pronounced by him against the Pelagian heretics. They evidently regarded him as first in dignity among all bishops but not as master or ruler of all; they "admire him for his far-reaching solicitude as to the interests of religion." "It is your habit great as you are to approve yourself in regard to all things and to take a personal interest in the defence of the churches." Nestorius, though sent away from Ephesus, had been allowed to live at his old home near Antioch. Celestine objected strongly to this and thought that Nestorius ought to be placed where he could have no opportunity of spreading his opinions. The birthplace of the Christian name is beset by a pestilent "disease." As for Nestorius's adherents, he thinks, there are many points for consideration, and that a distinction should be drawn between heresiarchs and their followers. The latter "should have opportunity of recovering their position on repentance." The consecrators of Maximian appeared to him to have passed a too indiscriminating sentence against all Nestorianizing bishops, and Celestine wished to moderate their zeal. He also wrote (Ep. 23) to Theodosius, extravagantly lauding his acts in behalf of orthodoxy, speaking highly of Maximian, and hinting that Nestorius ought to be sent into distant exile. "One of Celestine's last actions," says Tillemont, xiv. 156, "was his defence of the memory of St. Augustine as a teacher, against the semi-Pelagians of Gaul. He wrote to Venerius, bp. of Marseilles, and five other Gallic prelates, urging them not to be silent. When presbyters spoke rashly and contentiously, it was not seemly that bishops should allow their subordinates 'to claim the first place in teaching,' especially when they raised their voices against 'Augustine of holy memory'" (Ep. 21). The nine articles on the doctrine of grace appended to this letter are not by Celestine (see note to Oxf. ed. of Fleury, iii. p. 143). Celestine is described by Socrates (vii. 11) as having treated the Novatianists of Rome with harshness, taken away their churches, and obliged their bishop Rusticola to hold his services in private houses. Celestine died on or about July 26, 432 (Tillemont, xiv. 738), and was succeeded by Sixtus III. Hefele, Conc. Gesch. ed. 2, pp. 164 ff. ^[2]

Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome, successor of Fabianus, said to have been son of Castinus. After the martyrdom of Fabianus in Jan. 250, in the Decian persecution, the see remained vacant for a year and a half. In June, a.d. 251, Cornelius was elected to the vacant post; and, although very reluctantly, he accepted an election almost unanimously made by both orders, during the life of a tyrant who had declared that he would rather see a new pretender to the empire than a new bishop of Rome (Cyprian., Ep. Iii.). Decius was at that time absent from Rome, prosecuting the Gothic war which ended in his death in the winter of the same year. The persecution of the Christians thus came to an end; but then arose the difficult question of how to treat the libellatici, Christians who had bought their life by the acceptance of false certificates of having sacrificed to heathen gods. Cornelius took a line at variance with that of Cyprian and the church of Carthage, which required rigorous penance as the price of readmission, while Rome prescribed milder terms. The difference was kept alive by the discontent of the minority within both the churches. This was represented at Carthage by Novatus, who separated from the church when unable to obtain less harsh terms; in Rome by a man of similar name, Novatian, who was in favour of greater rigour than the church would allow. Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in designs at Rome which must have been directly opposed to his own at Carthage. Mainly by his influence Novatian was consecrated a bishop, and thus constituted the head of a schismatic body in Rome. Eusebius ( Hist. Eccl. vi. 43) quotes from a letter of bp. Cornelius to bp. Fabius of Antioch, in which he gives an account of his rival, with statistics as to the number of Roman clergy in his day. These were 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 52 readers and ostiarii; 1,500 widows and orphans were provided for by the church. The Novatianist heresy gave rise to a correspondence between Cyprian and Cornelius. Persecution was revived in Rome by Gallus, and Cornelius, followed by almost the whole church (among whom were many restored libellatics), took refuge at Centumcellae in Etruria. There Cornelius died, and another bishop, Lucius, was at the head of the church when it returned. It is doubtful whether Cornelius died a violent death. Cyprian and Jerome both speak of him as a martyr. He died Sept. 14, 252. His name as a martyr has been found in the Catacombs at some little distance from those of other popes, and in a cemetery apparently devoted almost exclusively to the gens Cornelia, whence De Rossi argues that he probably belonged to that patrician gens (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, pp. 177–183). ^[1]

Dionysius (7) , bp. of Rome; a Greek by birth, consecrated July 22, a.d. 259, on the death of Xystus, in the persecution of Valerian. His efforts against heresy are recorded. When Dionysius of Alexandria (q.v. ) was accused of holding doctrines akin to those of Sabellius, the Roman Dionysius wrote to him, and extracted so satisfactory a defence that he declared him purged of suspicion (Athan. Ep. de Sent. Dionys. Opp. i. 252; see an Eng. trans. of the Fragm. against Sabellius in Ante-Nicene Lib. ). In 264 the Alexandrian and Roman Dionysii acted together with the council of Antioch in condemning and degrading Paul of Samosata. Dionysius of Rome died Dec. 26, 269. ^[1]

Eleutherus (1) , bp. of Rome in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, during 15 years, 6 months, and 5 days, according to the Liberian catalogue. Eusebius (H. E. v. prooem. ) places his accession in the 17th year of Antoninus Verus (i.e. Marcus Aurelius), viz. a.d. 177; which would make 192 the date of his death. But the consuls given in the Liberian catalogue as contemporary with his election and death are those of 171 and 185. Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22), states that when he himself arrived in Rome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who was then bishop, and became bishop on the death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus (cf. Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. c. 22). Eleutherus was contemporary with the Aurelian persecution; and after the death of Aurelius the Christians had peace, in consequence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the concubine of Commodus; the only recorded exception in Rome being the martyrdom of Apollonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. H. E. v. 21; Jerome, Catal. c. 42). The chief sufferers under Aurelius were the churches of Asia Minor and those of Lyons and Vienne in Southern Gaul, a.d. 177. In letters to Eleutherus by the hand of Irenaeus the latter churches made known, "for the sake of the peace of the churches" ( H. E. v. 3), their own judgment, with that of their martyrs while in prison, respecting the claims of Montanus to inspiration. The fact of the bp. of Rome having been especially addressed on this occasion has been adduced as an acknowledgment in that early age of his supreme authority. But the letters of the martyrs to Eleutherus do not appear, from Eusebius, to have had any different purport from those sent also to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, nor does their object seem to have been to seek a judgment, but rather to express one, in virtue, we may suppose, of the weight carried in those days by the utterances of martyrs. Their having addressed Eleutherus, as well as the churches where Montanus himself was teaching, is sufficiently accounted for by the prominence of the Roman bishop's position in the West, about which there is no dispute. Of the course taken by Eleutherus with respect to Montanus nothing can be alleged with certainty. Besides the heresy of Montanus, those of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion were then at their height, and gained many adherents in Rome. Valentinus and Cerdo had come there between 138 and 142; Marcion a little later. There is, however, some difficulty in placing the sojourn in Rome of these heresiarchs in the episcopate of Eleutherus; Valentinus, according to other accounts, having died previously (see Tillem. On Eleutherus ). Florinus and Blastus also, two degraded presbyters of Rome, broached during the episcopate of Eleutherus certain heresies, of which nothing is known except what may be gathered from the titles of certain lost treatises written against them by Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v. 14, 15, 20, Pacian, Ep. i.). The visit of Irenaeus to Eleutherus gave the latter opportunity to become acquainted with the prevalent heresies, against which he became the most distinguished champion. Especially interesting to Englishmen is the story connecting Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity (Bede, H. E. c. iv.). ^[1]. This account, written some 500 years after the event, is the earliest mention of it in any historian. It seems pretty certain that it was from a Roman catalogue that Bede got his information, Gildas, his usual authority, being silent on the subject. In the hands of chroniclers after Bede the story receives several and growing additions. The story is first found in its simplest form in the Pontifical annals at Rome, in the 6th cent.; is introduced into Britain by Bede in the 8th; grows into the conversion of the whole of Britain in the 9th; and appears full-fledged, enriched with details, and connected with both Llandaff and Glastonbury, in the 12th. There is, however, nothing improbable in the original story itself, and it is more likely to have had some fact than pure invention for its origin, and the Welsh traditions about Lleirwg, though unnoticed by Gildas, may have been ancient and genuine ones, independent of Bede's account. Lingard takes this view, laying stress on the dedication of churches in the diocese of Llandaff to Lleirwg and the saints associated with him, and supposing him to have been an independent British prince outside the Roman pale. In confirmation of the story is alleged further the fact that, shortly after the time of Eleutherus writers first begin to speak of British Christianity. For Tertullian, Origen, and Arnobius are the first to allude to the triumphs of the Gospel, though partial, in this remote island. What they say, however, is quite consistent with the earlier, and other than Roman, origin of the British church; and it may be that it was the very fact of their having borne this testimony that suggested Eleutherus, a pope shortly anterior to their date, as one to whom the mission might be assigned. ^[2]

Eusebius (1) , succeeded Marcellus as bp. of Rome, a.d. 309 or 310. He was banished by Maxentius to Sicily, where he died after a pontificate of four months (Apr. 18 to Aug. 17). His body was brought back to Rome, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way. Hardly anything was known with certainty about this bishop till the discoveries of de Rossi in the catacombs. That he was buried in the cemetery of Callistus rested on the authority of the Liberian Deposit. Episc. and the Felician catalogue. But ancient itineraries, written by persons who had visited these tombs, described his resting-place as not being the papal crypt in that cemetery, where all the popes (with two exceptions) since Pontianus had been laid, but in a separate one some distance from it. De Rossi found this crypt, and therein discovered, in 1852 and 1856, fragments of the inscription placed by pope Damasus over the grave, and known from copies taken before the closing of the catacombs. But it was previously uncertain whether it referred to Eusebius the pope or to some other Eusebius. All such doubt was now set at rest by the discovery, in the crypt referred to, of 46 fragments of a slab bearing a copy of the original inscription, and of the original slab, identified by the peculiar characters of Damasine inscriptions. The inscription is as follows:— Damasus Episcopus feci. Heraclius vetuit lapsos peccata dolere Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina flere Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore Seditio caedes bellum discordia lites Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis Pertulit exilium domino sub judice laetus Litore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit. Eusebio Episcopo et martyri." We thus have revealed a state of things at Rome of which no other record has been preserved. It would seem that, on the cessation of Diocletian's persecution, the church there was rent into two parties on the subject of the terms of readmission of the lapsed to communion: that one Heraclius headed a party who were for readmission without the penitential discipline insisted on by Eusebius; that the consequent tumults and bloodshed caused "the tyrant" Maxentius to interpose and banish the leaders of both factions; and that Eusebius, dying during his exile in Sicily, thus obtained the name of martyr. It appears further, from the similar Damasine inscription on Marcellus, that the contest had begun before the accession of Eusebius, who, like Marcellus, had required penance from the lapsi . ^[1] The way in which the name of Heraclius occurs in the inscription on Eusebius suggests that he may have been elected as an antipope (so Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe ). At any rate, the subject of dispute was the same as had led to the first election of an antipope, viz. Novatian, after the Decian persecution, some 50 years before; though on the earlier occasion the question was whether the lapsi were to be readmitted to communion at all or not, the schismatics being on the side of severity; on the later occasion the question was only about the conditions of their readmission, the dissentients being on the side of laxity. In both instances the church of Rome, as represented by her lawful bishops, seems to have held a consistent and judicious course. ^[2]

Eusebius (96) , Aug. 14, presbyter, confessor at Rome a.d. 358, and by some styled martyr. >From the earliest times his fame has been everywhere celebrated. A church dedicated to him is mentioned in the first council held at Rome under pope Symmachus, a.d. 498 (Mansi, viii. 236, 237). It was rebuilt by pope Zacharias, c. 742 (Anastas. Lib. Pontif. art. "Zacharias," No. 216). The facts of his history are very obscure. His Acts (Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p. 141) relate that upon the recall of pope Liberius by Constantius, Eusebius preached against them both as Arians; and since the orthodox party, who now supported Felix, were excluded from all the churches, he continued to hold divine service in his own house. For this he was brought before Constantius and Liberius, when he boldly reproved the pope for falling away from Catholic truth. Constantius thereupon consigned him to a dungeon four feet wide, where he continued to languish for seven months and then died. He was buried by his friends and co-presbyters Orosius and Gregory, in the cemetery of Callistus, with the simple inscription "Eusebio Homini Dei." Constantius arrested Gregory for this, and consigned him to the same dungeon, where he also died, and was in turn buried by Orosius, by whom the Acts of Eusebius profess to have been written. The Bollandist and Tillemont point out grave historical difficulties in this narration, especially that Constantius, Liberius, and Eusebius never could have been in the city together. The whole matter is a source of trouble to Roman Catholic writers, because the saintly character of St. Eusebius, guaranteed by the Roman martyrology as revised by pope Gregory XIII., seems necessarily to involve the condemnation of Liberius. The Bollandists at great length vindicate the catholicity of Felix II., and are equally zealous champions of St. Eusebius. Tillemont and Hefele ( Hist. of Councils , ii. § 81, "Pope Liberius and the Third Sirmian Formula") are equally decided opponents of Felix. ^[1]

Martyr (286 or 303). He was a Roman comedian who, during a derisive theatrical representation of Baptism, was converted; he suffered under Diocletian. Patron of theatrical performers and musicians, invoked against epilepsy. Relics partly in San Giovanni della Pigna, partly in San Susanna di Termini, and the chapel of Saint Lawrence. Feast, August 25,.

Rome (rôme). In the New Testament times Rome was the capital of the empire in its greatest prosperity. Among its inhabitants were many Jews. Acts 28:17. They had received the liberty of worship and other privileges from Cæsar, and lived in the district across the Tiber. We know that as early as a.d. 64, eight or ten years after a church was established there and addressed by Paul, Romans 1:8; Romans 16:19, the emperor Nero commenced a furious persecution against its members, which the emperor Domitian renewed a.d. 81, and the emperor Trajan carried out with implacable malice, a.d. 97-117. Seasons of suffering and repose succeeded each other alternately until the reign of Constantine, a.d. 325, when Christianity was established as the religion of the empire. Within the gardens of Nero in the Neronian persecution, a.d. 64, after the great conflagration, Christians, wrapped in skins of beasts, were torn by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable stuffs, were burnt as torches during the midnight games; others were crucified. In the colosseum, a vast theatre, games of various sorts and gladiatorial shows were held, and within its arena many Christians, during the ages of persecution, fought with wild beasts, and many were slain tor their faith. The catacombs are vast subterranean galleries (whether originally sand-pits or excavations is uncertain). Their usual height is from eight to ten feet, and their width from four to six feet, and they extend for miles, especially in the region of the Appian and Nomentane Ways. The catacombs were early used by the Christians as places of refuge, worship, and burial. More than four thousand inscriptions have been found in these subterranean passages, which are considered as belonging to the period between the reign of Tiberius and that of the emperor Constantine. Among the oldest of the inscriptions in the catacombs is one dated a.d. 71. Rome, as a persecuting power, is referred to by the "seven heads" and "seven mountains" in Revelation 17:9, and is probably described under the name of "Babylon" elsewhere in the same hook. Revelation 14:8; Revelation 16:19; Revelation 17:5; Revelation 18:2; Revelation 18:21.

Augustinian philosopher and theologion, called Doctor fundatissimus, born Rome, Italy, c.1247;died Avignon, France, 1316. He studied under Thomas Aquinas at Paris, and was the first Augustinian to teach in that university. Though Honorius IV asked him to retract publicly certain opinions, the general chapter of the Augustinians ordered all its members to accept and defend all his teachings. In 1292 he was elected superior general. In 1295 he was named Archbishop of Bourges by Boniface VIII, and, despite the protests of the French nobles, his appointment was approved by Philip IV, his former pupil. Colonna favored Boniface VIII in his struggle with Philip IV, and may have written the famous Bull "Unam Sanctam." His theological followers were known as the Ægidian School. One of his most important writings was the treatise composed for his royal pupil on the conduct of rulers.

Born c.515;died 592. Mother of Pope Gregory the Great, sister of Saint Tarasillus, and wife of the Roman regionarius, Gordianus, born either in Sicily or Rome. She gave her sons an excellent education, and after the death of her husband devoted herself to religion. Patroness of pregnant women. Feast, November 3,.

Born c.515;died 592. Mother of Pope Gregory the Great, sister of Saint Tarasillus, and wife of the Roman regionarius, Gordianus, born either in Sicily or Rome. She gave her sons an excellent education, and after the death of her husband devoted herself to religion. Patroness of pregnant women. Feast, November 3,.

Born c.515;died 592. Mother of Pope Gregory the Great, sister of Saint Tarasillus, and wife of the Roman regionarius, Gordianus, born either in Sicily or Rome. She gave her sons an excellent education, and after the death of her husband devoted herself to religion. Patroness of pregnant women. Feast, November 3,.

City and diocese of the Pope, known also as the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, the Holy Roman Church, the Holy See, and the Eternal City. It was inhabited as early as the 8th century B.C., and, according to some authorities, several centuries earlier. Its first growth is obscure, there being, however, three clearly-defined original tribes, Ramnians (Latins), Titians (Sabines), and Luceres (Etruscans). The members of these ancient tribes were known as patricians, and their struggle down to the Imperial period with the newer inhabitants or plebeians resulted in the civil,political, and judicial organization of Rome. With the end of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, the last of its hereditary kings, Rome took to itself the republican form of government, with two consuls, elected for one year, and a dictator elected in difficult times to wield unlimited power. The dictatorship and the oligarchy led naturally to the monarchy, of which Julius Caesar was the first acknowledged exponent. Under the emperors, although the Roman power materially extended, Roman history is no longer that of the city of Rome, notwithstanding the fact that it was not until Caracalla's reign in 211 that Roman citizenship was accorded to all free subjects of the Empire. According to ancient tradition, Saint Peter first came to Rome in 42, although Saint Barnabas is also given as its first evangelist, and at the arrival of Saint Paul (c.60) the Christians had become numerous. The systematic and continued persecutions began under Nero (c.64) but the Church continued to grow so that even after the fury of the Decian persecution, c.250,the city numbered about 50,000 Christians. Heresies, too, appeared here, even at this early period; Arianism alone, however, disturbed the religious peace of the era. With the Vandal invasion of 456, although the destruction of Rome did not then begin, there ensued a long period of incessant attacks upon the waning power of the Empire, principally by Goths and Lombards, the ancient Senate and the Roman nobility having finally become extinct with the Byzantine occupation of 552. After the coronation of Charlemagne in 800, though the pope was master at Rome, the power of the sword was wielded by the imperial missi. Thus the government was divided. Later, in the 10th century, the temporal power of the pope, threatened by the decline of the Carlovingian dynasty, became a cause of war in the friction between papacy and empire. With the absence of the popes from the city in the 14th century a tenure of anarchy set in which, during a comparatively brief period, disrupted the fragile pretense of civilization. After the Schism of the West, the real rebirth of Rome began with Martin V, the patronage of letters and of arts, however, soon degenerating into a license and luxury which was followed by the sack of 1527. With the ending of the pontificate of Pope Pius VI came the proclamation of the Republic of Rome, 1798, and the pope's exile. Pope Pius VII was able to return, but after 1806 there was a French government at Rome, as well as the papal, and in 1809 the city was incorporated into the empire. After the coronation of Pope Pius IX the Constituent Assembly in February 1849 declared the papal power abolished, and hatred against the Church culminated in the massacre of defenseless priests and the wrecking of churches, until the restoration of the papal power by the French in August 1849. Garibaldi invaded the Papal States in 1867, although it was not until 1870 that Rome was taken from the popes and made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy. By a treaty between the Italian Government and the Vatican on February 11, 1929, the full and independent sovereignty of the Holy See in the City of the Vatican was recognized. The non-religious buildings of Rome include the Palace of the Cancelleria and the Curia of Pope Innocent X, now occupied by the Italian Government. The principal ancient edifices include the Flavian Amphitheater or Coliseum, the Arch of Constantine, the Circus Maximus, Trajan's Column, and the Mausoleum of Augustus. The most notable museums are the Vatican, Lateran, Capitoline, Borghese, and the National Galleries. The diocese comprises 66 parishes, 56 in the city and 10 in the suburbs, with 362 churches and chapels and 550 secular priests; also the four great basilicas: Saint John Lateran, Saint Peter's, Saint Paul's Outside the Walls, and Saint Mary Major. The patriarchal basilica of Saint Lawrence Outside the Walls, and the ten minor basilicas: San Croce in Gerusalemme; Saint Sebastian Outside the Walls; San Maria in Trastevere; San Lorenzo in Damaso; San Maria in Cosmedin; Santi Apostoli; San Pietro in Vincoli; San Maria Regina Caeli in Monte Santo; San Maria degli Angeli; Sacred Heart, at the Castro Pretorio. Other interesting churches are the Gesti, a 16th-century church; San Maria Sopra Minerva, the only authentic Gothic church in Rome; San Cecilia, a very ancient church, standing on the site of the saint's home; San Salvatore della Scala Santa, containing the stairs of Pilate's praetorium. The institutes of public charity are all consolidated in the Congregazione di Carita. For ecclesiastical instruction there are, besides the various Italian and foreign colleges, three great ecclesiastical universities: the Gregorian, under the Jesuits; the schools of the Roman Seminary; and the Collegio Angelico of the Dominicans. The University of Rome, established in 1303, is now under control of the Italian Government. Suffragen dioceses include Albano (Suburbicarian See) Anagni-Alatri Civita Castellana (, Orte, Gallese, Nepi e Sutri) Civitaveccia-Tarquinia Frascati (Suburbicarian See) Frosinone-Veroli-Ferentino Gaeta Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno Montecassino (Territorial Abbey) Palestrina (Suburbicarian See) Porto-Santa Rufina (Suburbicarian See) Rieti (-S. Salvatore Maggiore) Sabina-Poggio Mirteto (Suburbicarian See) Santa Maria di Grottaferrata (Territorial Abbey) Sora-Aquino-Pontecorvo Subiaco (Territorial Abbey) Tivoli Velletri-Segni (Suburbicarian See) Viterbo See also Catholic-Hierarchy.Org Vatican patron saints index

Founded at Barton, Wisconsin in 1846, by the missionary priest Father Caspar Rehrl for the education of children. The congregation manages an academy, primary and secondary schools, hospitals, orphanages, a home for the aged, and the Leo House at New York for the care of immigrants, all in the United States. The mother-house and novitiate is at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.

Founded by Bull of Pope Clement VIII in 1600 for the education of Scottish priests. It was closed in 1798, but re-opened in 1820 through the efforts of Paul MacPherson. The students attend the Gregorian University, and are distinguished by their purple cassocks, with crimson sash and black soprana (cape).

Founded by Pope Boniface VIII in 1303. It declined after the transfer of the Papal Court to Avignon, and was closed in 1310. It was reestablished by Pope Eugene IV in 1431, who increased the revenues and drew up new regulations for its government. Numerous chairs were added by succeeding pontiffs, and the schools, especially that of law, flourished, although the student attendance was never large, often being smaller than the number of professors. It was closed during the pontificate of Pope Clement VII but reopened by Pope Paul III, who obtained such distinguished professors as Lainez, S.J., for theology; Faber, S.J., for Scripture; Copernicus for astronomy, and Accoramboni for medicine. At this time it acquired the name Sapienza. It again began to decline in the 16th and 17th centuries, was reorganized in the 18th, but at the end of the 19th came under control of the Italian Government and is now called the Royal University. It has the usual number of faculties and numerous associate schools.

Founded by Pope Boniface VIII in 1303. It declined after the transfer of the Papal Court to Avignon, and was closed in 1310. It was reestablished by Pope Eugene IV in 1431, who increased the revenues and drew up new regulations for its government. Numerous chairs were added by succeeding pontiffs, and the schools, especially that of law, flourished, although the student attendance was never large, often being smaller than the number of professors. It was closed during the pontificate of Pope Clement VII but reopened by Pope Paul III, who obtained such distinguished professors as Lainez, S.J., for theology; Faber, S.J., for Scripture; Copernicus for astronomy, and Accoramboni for medicine. At this time it acquired the name Sapienza. It again began to decline in the 16th and 17th centuries, was reorganized in the 18th, but at the end of the 19th came under control of the Italian Government and is now called the Royal University. It has the usual number of faculties and numerous associate schools.

Hymn for Vespers on feast of Saint Martina, January 30,. It was written by Pope Urban VIII (1568-1644). There are four translations. The English title given is by T. Potter.

Martyr (286 or 303). He was a Roman comedian who, during a derisive theatrical representation of Baptism, was converted; he suffered under Diocletian. Patron of theatrical performers and musicians, invoked against epilepsy. Relics partly in San Giovanni della Pigna, partly in San Susanna di Termini, and the chapel of Saint Lawrence. Feast, August 25,.

Mystic, widow, foundress of the Benedictine Oblate congregation of Tor di Specchi, born Rome, Italy, 1384; died there, 1440. Although desirous of entering the religious life, she complied with her father's wishes and married Lorenzo de' Ponziani. In 1433 the pope approved her foundation of Oblates, known as Collatines, and after her husband's death (1436) she retired to Tor di Specchi, and became superioress. She is famous for her devotion to the angels, who appeared to her frequently and guided her, also for her charity to the poor. Canonized, 1608. Relics in church of Saint Francesca Romana, Rome, Italy. Feast, Roman Calendar, March 9,.

The pope who, besides being head of the universal Church, occupies its central and principal see, Rome, in succession to its first bishop, Peter.

Virgin, martyr. Born Rome; died there, c304Details of her martyrdom vary, but it is generally agreed that she was about twelve years of age and that she was tortured by fire or decapitated. Her virginity and heroism are renowned, and her name occurs in the prayer "Nobis quoque peccatoribus," in the Canon of the Mass. The catacombs of Saint Agnes on the Via Nomentana grew up around her crypt there, on a small piece of property owned by her family. Two lambs blessed on her feast supply part of the wool of the pallia. Patron of Children of Mary. Emblems: lamb, butcher. Feast, Roman Calendar, January 21, and a second, January 28,.

the famous capital of the ancient world, is situated on the Tiber at a distance of about 15 miles from its mouth. The "seven hills," (Revelation 17:9 ) which formed the nucleus of the ancient city stand on the left bank. On the opposite side of the river rises the far higher side of the Janiculum. Here from very early times was a fortress with a suburb beneath it extending to the river. Modern Rome lies to the north of the ancient city, covering with its principal portion the plain to the north of the seven hills, once known as the Campus Martius, and on the opposite bank extending over the low ground beneath the Vatican to the north of the ancient Janiculum. Rome is not mentioned in the Bible except in the books of Maccabees and in three books of the New Testament, viz., the Acts, the Epistle to the Romans and the Second Epistle to Timothy. Jewish inhabitants. the conquests of Pompey seem to have given rise to the first settlement of Jews at Rome. The Jewish king Aristobulus and his son formed part of Pompey's triumph, and many Jewish captives and immigrants were brought to Rome at that time. A special district was assigned to them, not on the site of the modern Ghetto, between the Capitol and the island of the Tiber, but across the Tiber. Many of these Jews were made freedmen. Julius Caesar showed them some kindness; they were favored also by Augustus, and by Tiberius during the latter part of his reign. It is chiefly in connection with St. Paul's history that Rome comes before us in the Bible. In illustration of that history it may be useful to give some account of Rome in the time of Nero, the "Caesar" to whom St. Paul appealed, and in whose reign he suffered martyrdom. The city in Paul's time. --The city at that time must be imagined as a large and irregular mass of buildings unprotected by an outer wall. It had long outgrown the old Servian wall; but the limits of the suburbs cannot be exactly defined. Neither the nature of the buildings nor the configuration of the ground was such as to give a striking appearance to the city viewed from without. "Ancient Rome had neither cupola nor camyanile," and the hills, never lofty or imposing, would present, when covered with the buildings and streets of a huge city, a confused appearance like the hills of modern London, to which they have sometimes been compared. The visit of St. Paul lies between two famous epochs in the history of the city, viz, its restoration by Augustus and its restoration by Nero. The boast of Augustus is well known, "that he found the city of brick, and left it of marble." Some parts of the city, especially the Forum and Campus Martius, must have presented a magnificent appearance, of which Niebur's "Lectures on Roman History," ii. 177, will give a general idea; but many of the principal buildings which attract the attention of modern travellers in ancient Rome were not yet built. The streets were generally narrow and winding, flanked by densely crowded lodging-houses (insulae) of enormous height. Augustus found it necessary to limit their height to 70 feet. St, Paul's first visit to Rome took place before the Neronian conflagration but even after the restoration of the city which followed upon that event, many of the old evils continued. The population of the city has been variously estimated. Probably Gibbon's estimate of 1,200,000 is nearest to the truth. One half of the population consisted, in all probability, of slaves. The larger part of the remainder consisted of pauper citizens supported in idleness by the miserable system of public gratuities. There appears to have been no middle class, and no free industrial population. Side by side with the wretched classes just mentioned was the comparatively small body of the wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profligacy we learn so much from the heathen writers of the time, Such was the population which St. Paul would find at Rome at the time of his visit. We learn from the Acts of the Apostles that he was detained at Rome for "two whole years," "dwelling in his own hired house with a soldier that kept him," ( Acts 28:16 ; 30 ) to whom apparently, according to Roman custom, he was hound with a chain. (Acts 28:20 ; Ephesians 6:20 ; Philippians 1:13 ) Here he preached to all that came to him, no man forbidding him. (Acts 28:30,31 ) It is generally believed that on his "appeal to Caesar" he was acquitted, and after some time spent in freedom, was a second time imprisoned at Rome. Five of his epistles, viz., those to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, that to Philemon, and the Second Epistle to Timothy, were in all probability written from Rome, the latter shortly before his death (2 Timothy 4:6 ) the others during his first imprisonment. It is universally believed that he suffered martyrdom at Rome. The localities in and about Rome especially connected with the life of Paul are-- (1) The Appian Way, by which he approached Rome. ( Acts 28:15 ) ^[1] (2) "The palace," Or "Caesar's court" (praetorium,) (Philippians 1:13 ) This may mean either the great camp of the Praetorian guards which Tiberius established outside the walls on the northeast of the city, or, as seems more probable, a barrack attached to the imperial residence on the Palatine. There is no sufficient proof that the word "praetorium" was ever used to designate the emperors palace, though it is used for the official residence of a Roman governor. (John 18:28 ; Acts 23:35 ) the mention of "Caesar's household," (Philippians 4:22 ) confirms the notion that St. Paul's residence was in the immediate neighborhood of the emperor's house on the Palatine. (3) The connection of other localities at home with St. Paul's name rests only on traditions of more or less probability. We may mention especially-- (4) The Mamertine prison, of Tullianum, built by Ancus Martius near the Forum. It still exists beneath the church of St. Giuseppe dei Falegnami. It is said that St. Peter and St. Paul were fellow prisoners here for nine months. This is not the place to discuss the question whether St. Peter was ever at Rome. It may be sufficient to state that though there is no evidence of such a visit in the New Testament, unless Babylon in (1 Peter 5:13 ) is a mystical name for Rome yet early testimony and the universal belief of the early Church seems sufficient to establish the fact of his having suffered martyrdom there. ^[2] The story, however, of the imprisonment in the Mamertine prison seems inconsistent with (2 Timothy 4:11 ) (5) The chapel on the Ostian road which marks the spot where the two apostles are said to, have separated on their way to martyrdom. (6)The supposed scene of St. Paul's martyrdom, viz., the church of St. Paolo alle tre fontane on the Ostian road. To these may be added -- (7) The supposed scene of St. Peter's martyrdom, viz., the church of St. Pietro in Montorio, on the Janiculum. (8) The chapel Domine que Vadis, on the Aypian road,the scene of the beautiful legend of our Lord's appearance to St. Peter as he was escaping from martyrdom. (9) The places where the bodies of the two apostles, after having been deposited first in the catacombs, are supposed to have been finally buried --that of St. Paul by the Ostian road, that of St. Peter beneath the dome of the famous Basilica which bears his name. We may add, as sites unquestionably connected with the Roman Christians of the apostolic age-- (10) The gardens of Nero in the Vatican. Not far from the spot where St. Peter's now stands. Here Christians, wrapped in the skins of beasts, were torn to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable robes, were burnt to serve as torches during the midnight games. Others were crucified. (11) The Catacombs. These subterranean galleries, commonly from 8 to 10 feet in height and from 4 to 6 in width, and extending for miles, especially in the neighborhood of the old Appian and Nomentan Ways, were unquestionably used as places of refuge, of worship and of burial by the early Christians. The earliest dated inscription in the catacombs is A.D. 71. Nothing is known of the first founder of the Christian Church at Rome. Christianity may, perhaps, have been introduced into the city not long after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost by the "strangers of Rome, who were then at Jerusalem, (Acts 2:10 ) It is clear that there were many Christians at Rome before St. Paul visited the city. (Romans 1:8,13,15 ; 15:20 ) The names of twenty-four Christians at Rome are given in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans. Linus, who is mentioned (2 Timothy 4:21 ) and Clement, Philippians 4:3 Are supposed to have succeeded St. Peter as bishops of Rome.

Joannes (346) I., bp. of Rome after Hormisdas, Aug. 13, 523, to May 18, 526. The emperor Justin, having during the pontificate of Hormisdas restored the churches in the East to orthodoxy and communion with Rome, continued to shew his orthodox zeal by the persecution of heretics. Having already suppressed the Eutychians and Nestorians, he issued in 523 a severe edict against Manicheans, condemning them, wherever found, to banishment or death ( Cod. Justin. leg. 12). Justin's edict had debarred other heretics from public offices, but had excepted the Arian Goths because of his league with Theodoric, the Gothic king of Italy. Soon afterwards, however, he proceeded against the Arians also, ordering all their churches to be consecrated anew for the use of the Catholics. Theodoric, who, though an Arian, had hitherto granted toleration to Catholics in his own dominions, remonstrated with the emperor by letter, but without effect. He therefore applied to the bp. of Rome, whom he sent for to Ravenna, desiring him to go to Constantinople to use his influence with the emperor, and threatening that, unless toleration were conceded to Arians in the East, he would himself withhold it from Catholics in the West. John went (A.D. 525), accompanied by five bishops and four senators. The unprecedented event of a visit by a bishop of Rome to Constantinople caused a great sensation there. He was received with the utmost respect by acclaiming crowds and by the emperor. Invited by the patriarch Epiphanius to celebrate Easter with him in the great church, he consented only if seated on a throne above that of the patriarch. He officiated in Latin and according to the Latin rite. None were excluded from his communion except Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria (Theophan.; Marcellin. Com.). Anastasius ( Lib. Pontif. ) states that the emperor, though now in the 8th year of his reign, bowing to the ground before the vicar of St. Peter, solicited and obtained the honour of being crowned by him. There is concurrence of testimony that John obtained a cessation of Justin's measures against the Arians. Baronius and Binius, anxious to clear a pope from tolerating heresy, insist that John dissuaded the emperor from the concessions demanded. Against this supposition Pagi (Critic. ) cites the following: "Justin, having heard the legation, promised that he would do all, except that those who had been reconciled to the Catholic faith could by no means be restored to the Arians" (Anonym. Vales. ); "The venerable pope and senators returned with glory, having obtained all they asked from Justin" (Anastasius); "Justinus Augustus granted the whole petition, and restored to the heretics their churches, according to the wish of Theodoric the heretical king, lest Christians, and especially priests, should be put to the sword" (Auctor. Chron. Veterum Pontificum ); "Having come to Augustus, they requested him with many tears to accept favourably the tenour of their embassy, however unjust; and he, moved by their tears, granted what they asked, and left the Arians unmolested" (Miscell. lib. 15, ad ann. vi. Justin). Whatever the cause, it is certain that John and the legates were, on returning, received with displeasure by Theodoric and imprisoned at Ravenna, where the pope died on May 18, 526. His body was buried in St. Peter's at Rome on May 27, on which day he appears in the Roman Martyrology as a saint and martyr. See also Fragm. Vales. Greg. Dial. i. iii. c. 2. ^[1]

Joannes (347) II. (called Mercurius ), bp. of Rome after Boniface II., Dec. 31, 532, to May 27, 535, a Roman by birth who had been a Roman presbyter (Anastas. Lib. Pont. ) The canvassings and contests then usual delayed the election 11 weeks. Church funds were used and sacred vessels publicly sold for bribery (Ep. Athalaric. ad Joann. pap. ; Cassiodor. Variar. l. ix.; Ep. 15). The most noteworthy incident of his brief reign is a doctrinal decision, in which he appears at first sight to differ from one of his predecessors. Pope Hormisdas had in 522 written in strong condemnation of certain Scythian monks who had upheld the statement that "one of the Trinity" (Unus ex Trinitate ) "suffered in the flesh." His rejection of the phrase had at the time been construed so as to imply heresy (Ep. Maxent. ad Hormisd.), and now the Acoemetae , or "Sleepless Monks," of Constantinople argued from it in favour of the Nestorian position that Mary was not truly and properly the mother of God; saying with reason that, if He Who suffered in the flesh was not of the Trinity, neither was He Who was born in the flesh. The emperor Justinian, supported by the patriarch Epiphanius, having condemned the position of the "Sleepless Monks," they sent a deputation to Rome, urging the pope to support their deduction from the supposed doctrine of his predecessor. The emperor, having embodied his view of the true doctrine in an imperial edict, sent it with an embassy to Rome and a letter requesting the pope to signify in writing to himself and the patriarch his acceptance of the doctrine of the edict, which he lays down as indubitably true, and assumes to be, as a matter of course, the doctrine of the Roman see (Inter. Epp. Joann. II. Labbe). But the edict was a distinct assertion of the correctness of the phrase contended for by the Scythian monks and so much objected to by Hormisdas. Its words are, "The sufferings, as well as miracles, which Christ of His own accord endured in the flesh are of one and the same. For we do not know God the Word as one and Christ as another, but one and the same" (Lex. Justin. Cod. 1, i. 6). In his letter Justinian expresses himself similarly. John, having received both deputations, assembled the Roman clergy, who at first could come to no agreement. But afterwards a synod convened by the pope accepted and confirmed Justinian's confession of faith. To this effect he wrote to the emperor on Mar 25, 534 (Joann. II. Ep. ii.; Labbe) and to the Roman senators, laying down the true doctrine as the emperor had defined it, and warning them not to communicate with the "Sleepless Monks." It is true that we do not find in the letters of Hormisdas any distinct condemnation of the phrase itself, however strongly he inveighed against its upholders, as troublesome and dangerous innovators. But the fact remains that a doctrinal statement which one pope strongly discountenanced, as at any rate unnecessary and fraught with danger, was, twelve years afterwards, at the instance of an emperor, authoritatively propounded by another. Justinian's view, which John accepted, has ever since been received as orthodox. In 534 John, being consulted by Caesarius of Arles as to Contumeliosus, bp. of Riez in Gaul, wrote to Caesarius, to the bishops of Gaul, and to the clergy of Riez, directing the guilty bishop to be confined in a monastery. A letter assigned to this pope by the Pseudo-Isidore, addressed to a bp. Valerius, on the relation of the Son to the Father, is spurious. ^[1]

Joannes (348) III., bp. of Rome, after Pelagius, July 18, 560, to July 12, 573, ordained after a vacancy of 4 months and 17 days, was the son of a person of distinction at Rome (Anastas. Lib. Pont. ). There are two incidents in which his name appears. Two bishops in Gaul had been deposed by a synod held by order of king Guntram at Lyons under the metropolitan Nicetius. The deposed prelates obtained the king's leave to appeal to Rome, and John III. ordered their restoration (Greg. Turon. Hist. l. v. cc. 20, 27). The second incident is mentioned by Anastasius ( Lib. Pont. in Vit. Joann. III. ), and by Paulus Diaconus (i. 5). The exarch Narses, having retired to Naples, there invited the Lombards to invade Italy. The pope went to him, and persuaded him to return to Rome. This incident, discredited by Baronius (Ann. 567, Nos. 8–12) is credited by Pagi and Muratori (cf. Gibbon, c. xlv.). ^[1]

Julius (5), bp. of Rome after Marcus, Feb. 6, 337, to Apr. 12, 352, elected after a vacancy of four months. His pontificate is specially notable for his defence of Athanasius, and for the canons of Sardica enacted during it. When Julius became pope, Athanasius was in exile at Trèves after his first deposition by the council of Tyre, having been banished by Constantine the Great in 336. Constantine, dying on Whitsunday 337, was succeeded by his three sons, by whose permission Athanasius returned to his see. But the Eusebians continuing their machinations, the restoration of Athanasius was declared invalid; and one Pistus was set up as bp. of Alexandria in his stead. A deputation was now sent to Rome to induce Julius to declare against Athanasius and acknowledge Pistus; but having failed to convince the pope, desired him to convene a general council at which he should adjudicate upon the charges against Athanasius. Socrates ( H. E. ii. 11) and Sozomen ( H. E. iii. 7) state that Eusebius wrote to Julius requesting him to judge the case. But this is not asserted by Julius, and is improbable. Julius undertook to hold a council wherever Athanasius chose, and seems to have sent a synodical letter to the Eusebians apprising them of his intention. The dates of the events that followed are not without difficulty. Early in 340 Pistus had been given up as the rival bishop, and one Gregory, a Cappadocian, violently intruded by Philagrius the prefect of Egypt into the see; and the Lenten services had been the occasion of atrocious treatment of the Catholics of Alexandria. Athanasius, having concealed himself for a time in the neighbourhood and prepared an encyclic in which he detailed the proceedings, seems to have departed for Rome about Easter 340, and to have been welcomed there by Julius, who, after his arrival, sent two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenes, with a letter to Eusebius and his party fixing Dec. 340, at Rome, for the proposed synod. The Eusebians refused to come, and detained the envoys of Julius beyond the time fixed. Elpidius and Philoxenes did not return to Rome till Jan. 341, bringing then a letter, the purport of which is gathered from the reply of Julius to be mentioned presently. Julius suppressed this letter for some time, hoping that the arrival of some Eusebians in Rome might spare him the pain of making it public, and in this hope he also deferred the assembling of the council. But no one came. The Eusebians now shewed themselves by no means prepared to submit to his adjudication, but took advantage of the dedication of a new cathedral at Antioch to hold a council of their own there, known as the "Dedication council" (probably in Aug. 341) and attended by 97 bishops. They prepared canons and three creeds, designed to convince the Western church of their orthodoxy, confirmed the sentence of the council of Tyre against Athanasius, and endeavoured to prevent his restoration by a canon with retrospective force, debarring even from a hearing any bishop or priest who should have officiated after a canonical deposition. Julius meanwhile had made public their letter, and, not yet knowing of the proceedings at Antioch, assembled his council in the church of the presbyter Vito at Rome, apparently in Nov. 341, Athanasius being stated to have been then a year and a half in Rome. It was attended by more than 50 bishops. Old and new accusations were considered; the Acts of the council of Tyre, and those of the inquiry in the Mareotis about the broken chalice, which had been left at Rome by the Eusebian envoys two years before, were produced; witnesses were heard in disproof of the charges and in proof of Eusebian atrocities; and the result was the complete acquittal of Athanasius and confirmation of the communion with him, which had never been discontinued by the Roman church. Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been deposed and banished on a charge of heresy by a Eusebian council at Constantinople in 336 and had been 15 months in Rome, was declared orthodox on the strength of his confession of faith which satisfied the council. Other bishops and priests, from Thrace, Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt, are said by Julius in his subsequent synodal letter to have been present to complain of injuries suffered from the Eusebian party. Socrates (H. E. ii. 15) and Sozomen ( H. E. iii. 8) say that all the deposed bishops were reinstated by Julius in virtue of the prerogative of the Roman see, and that he wrote vigorous letters in their defence, reprehending the Eastern bishops and summoning some of the accusers to Rome. But there seems much exaggeration here. Paul certainly, the deposed patriarch of Constantinople (whom Eusebius had succeeded and who is mentioned by Socrates and Sozomen among the successful appellants), was not restored till the death of his rival in 342, and then only for a time and not through the action of Julius; nor did Athanasius regain his see till 346. Indeed, Sozomen himself acknowledges (iii. 10) that Julius effected nothing at the time by his letters in favour of Athanasius and Paul, and consequently referred their cause to the emperor Constans. Julius's real attitude and action are best seen in the long letter he addressed to the Easterns at the desire of the Roman council, which has been preserved entire by Athanasius ( Apol. contra Arian. 21–36). He begins by animadverting strongly on the tone of the letter brought to him by his envoys, which was such, he says, that when he had at last reluctantly shewn it to others they could hardly believe it genuine. His own action had been complained of in the letter. He therefore both defends himself and recriminates: "You object to having your own synodal judgment ^[1] questioned in a second council. But this is no unprecedented proceeding. The council of Nice permitted the re-examination of synodical Acts. If your own judgment were right, you should have rejoiced in the opportunity of having it confirmed; and how can you, of all men, complain, when it was at the instance of your own emissaries, when worsted by the advocates of Athanasius, that the Roman council was convened? You certainly cannot plead the irreversibility of a synodical decision, having yourselves reversed even the judgment of Nice in admitting Arians to communion. If on this ground you complain of my receiving Athanasius, much more may I complain of your asking me to acknowledge Pistus, a man alleged by the envoys of Athanasius to have been condemned as an Arian at Nice and admitted by your own representatives to have been ordained by one Secundus, who had been so condemned. It must have been from chagrin at being so utterly refuted in his advocacy of Pistus that your emissary Macarius fled by night, though in weak health, from Rome." He next refers sarcastically to an allegation of his correspondents as to the equality of all bishops, made either in justification of their having judged a bp. of Alexandria or in deprecation of the case being referred to Rome. "If, as you write, you hold the honour of all bishops to be equal, and unaffected by the greatness of their sees, this view comes ill from those who have shewn themselves so anxious to get translated from their own small sees to greater ones." He here alludes to Eusebius himself, who had passed from Berytus to Nicomedia, and thence to Constantinople. Having treated as frivolous their plea of the short time allowed them to get to the Roman council, he meets their further complaint that his letter of summons had been addressed only to Eusebius and his party, instead of the whole Eastern episcopate. "I naturally wrote to those who had written to me." He adds emphatically, "Though I alone wrote, I did so in the name of, and as expressing the sentiments of, all the Italian bishops." He then justifies at length his action and that of the Roman council. The letters of accusation against Athanasius had been from strangers living at a distance, and contradicted one another: the testimonies in his favour from his own people, who knew him well, had been clear and consistent. He exposes the false charges about the murder of Arsenius and the broken chalice, and the unfairness of the Mareotic inquiry. He contrasts the conduct of Athanasius, who had come of his own accord to Rome to court investigation, with the unwillingness of his accusers to appear against him. He dwells on the uncanonical intrusion of Gregory the Cappadocian by military force into the Alexandrian see, and on the atrocities committed to enforce acceptance of him. "It is you," he adds, "who have set at nought the canons, and disturbed the church's peace; not we, as you allege, who have entertained a just appeal, and acquitted the innocent." After briefly justifying the acquittal of Marcellus from the charge of heresy, he calls upon those to whom he writes to repudiate the base conspiracy of a few and so remedy the wrong done. He points out what would have been the proper course of procedure in case of any just cause of suspicion against the bishops. This part of his letter is important, as shewing his own view of his position in relation to the church at large. "If," he says, "they were guilty, as you say they were, they ought to have been judged canonically, not after your method. All of us ^[2] ought to have been written to, that so justice might be done by all. For they were bishops who suffered these things, and bishops of no ordinary sees, but of such as were founded by apostles personally. Why, then, were you unwilling to write to us ^[3] especially about the Alexandrian see? Can you be ignorant that this is the custom; that we should be written to in the first place, so that hence ^[4] what is just may be defined? Wherefore, if a suspicion against the bishop had arisen there ^[5], it ought to have been referred hither to our church. But now, having never informed us of the case, they wish us to accept their condemnation, in which we had no part. Not so do the ordinances of St. Paul direct; not so do the Fathers teach: this is pride, and a new ambition. I beseech you, hear me gladly. I write this for the public good: for what we have received from the blessed Peter I signify to you." This language will hardly bear the inferences of Socrates (ii. 8, 17) and of Sozomen (iii. 10), that, according to church law, enactments made without the consent of the bp. of Rome were held invalid. It certainly implies no claim to exclusive jurisdiction over all churches. All that Julius insists on is that charges against the bishops of great sees ought, according to apostolic tradition and canonical rule, to be referred to the whole episcopate; and that, in the case of a bp. of Alexandria at least, custom gave the initiative of proceedings to the bp. of Rome. In this reference to custom he probably has in view the case of Dionysius of Alexandria, the charges against whom had been laid before Dionysius of Rome. The allegation in the earlier part of his letter of the fathers of Nice having sanctioned the reconsideration of the decisions of synods is more difficult to account for. He may be alluding to the action of the Nicene council in entertaining the case of Arius after he had been synodically condemned at Alexandria. The action of pope Julius appears open to no exception, for if the synod consisted of Westerns only, that was because the Easterns refused to attend it, though Julius had convened it at the suggestion of their own emissaries; and, after all, the Roman synod only confirmed the continuance of communion with Eastern prelates whom it deemed unjustly condemned. It had no power to do more. Still, the action of Julius may have served as a step towards subsequent papal claims of a more advanced kind; and it probably suggested the canons of Sardica, pregnant with results, which will be noticed presently. Athanasius remained still in Rome, till, in his fourth year of residence there—probably in the summer of 343—he received a summons from Constans, now sole emperor of the West, to meet him at Milan (Athan. Apol. ad Imp. Constantium , 4), about the holding of a new council, at which both East and West should be fully represented. With the concurrence of the Eastern emperor Constantius, this council was summoned at the Moesian town of Sardica on the confines of their empires, probably towards the end of 343. The scheme of united action failed, the Eastern bishops holding a separate synod at Philippopolis. The rest met at Sardica under the venerable Hosius of Cordova. In some editions of the Acts of the council he is designated one of the legates of the Roman see. But this designation seems due only to the desire, which appears in other cases, of assigning the presidency of all councils to the pope. According to Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian. 50), Julius was represented by two presbyters, Archidamus and Philoxenes, whose names appear in the signatures to the synodal letter of the council after that of Hosius. Hosius undoubtedly presided, and there is no sign of his having done so as the pope's deputy either in the Acts of the council or in the letter sent to Julius at its close. Nor can the initiative of the council be assigned to Julius, for this is inconsistent with the statement of Athanasius, who calls God to witness that when summoned to Milan he was entirely ignorant of the purpose of the summons, but found that it was because "certain bishops" there had been moving Constans to induce Constantius to allow a general council to be assembled ( Apol. ad Imp. Constantium , 4). If Julius had been the mover, it is unlikely that Athanasius, who was with him at Rome, would have been ignorant of the purpose of his summons or would have spoken only of "certain bishops." The council was convened by the emperors on their own authority, to review the whole past proceedings, whether at Tyre, Antioch, or Rome, without asking the pope's leave or inviting him to take the lead. It confirmed and promulgated anew all the decisions of the Roman council, decreed the restoration of the banished orthodox prelates, and excommunicated the Eusebian intruders. It also passed 21 canons of discipline, 3 being of special historic importance. The extant Acts of the council give them thus. Canon III. (al. III., IV.) "Bp. Osius said: This also is necessary to be added, that bishops pass not from their own province to another in which there are bishops, unless perhaps on the invitation of their brethren there, that we may not seem to close the gate of charity. And, if in any province a bishop have a controversy against a brother bishop, let neither of the two call upon a bishop from another province to take cognizance of it. But, should any one of the bishops have been condemned in any case, and think that he has good cause for a reconsideration of it, let us (if it please you) honour the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter, so that Julius, the Roman bishop, be written to by those who have examined the case; and, if he should judge that the trial ought to be renewed, let it be renewed, and let him appoint judges. But, if he should decide that the case is such that what has been done ought not to be reconsidered, what he thus decides shall be confirmed. Si hoc omnibus placet? The synod replied, Placet. " Canon IV. (al. V.) "Bp. Gaudentius said: Let it, if it please you, be added to this decree that when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of bishops who dwell in neighbouring places, and he has proclaimed his intention of taking his case to Rome, no other bishop shall by any means be ordained to his see till the cause has been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop." Canon V. ( al. VII.) "Bp. Osius said: It has seemed good to us ( placuit ) that if any bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of his own region have deposed him, and if he has appealed to the bishop of the Roman church, and if the latter is willing to hear him, and considers it just that the inquiry should be renewed, let him deign to write to the bishops of a neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into everything, and give their sentence according to the truth. But if the appellant in his supplication should have moved the Roman bishop to send a presbyter ^[6] 'de suo latere,' it shall be in his ^[7] power to do whatever he thinks right. And if he should decide to send persons having his own authority to sit in judgment with the bishops, it shall be at his option to do so. But if he should think the bishops sufficient for terminating the business, he shall do what approves itself to his most wise judgment." In these canons we notice, firstly , they were designed to provide what recent events had shewn the need of, and what the existing church system did not adequately furnish—a recognized court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes. The canons of Nice had provided none beyond the provincial synod, for beyond that the only strictly canonical appeal was to a general council, which could be but a rare event and was dependent on the will of princes. The need was felt of a readier remedy. Secondly , this remedy was provided by giving the Roman bishop the power to cause the judgment of provincial synods to be reconsidered; but only on the appeal of the aggrieved party, and only in certain prescribed ways. He might refuse to interfere, thus confirming the decision of the provincial synod; or he might constitute the bishops of a neighbouring province as a court of appeal; he might further, if requested and if he thought it necessary, send one or more presbyters as his legates to watch the proceedings, or appoint representatives of himself to sit as assessors in the court. But he was not empowered to interfere unless appealed to, or to summon the case to Rome to be heard before himself in synod; still less, of course, to adjudicate alone. Thirdly , it is evident that this course was sanctioned for the first time at Sardica. The canons, on the face of them, were not a confirmation of a traditional prerogative of Rome. The words of Hosius were, "Let us, if it please you, honour the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter," i.e. by conceding this power to the Roman bishop. Fourthly , the power in question was definitely given only to the then reigning pope, Julius, who is mentioned by name; and it has hence been supposed that it was not meant to be given his successors (cf. Richer. Hist. Concil. General. t. i. c. 3, § 4). But the arrangement was probably at any rate intended to be permanent, since the need for it and the grounds assigned for it were permanent. Fifthly , since it was the causes of Eastern bishops that led to the enactment, the canons were probably meant to apply to the whole church, and not to the Western only. The Greek canonists, Balsamon and Zonaras, maintain their narrower scope; and it is true that, the council having consisted of Westerns only, they were never accepted by the churches of the East. But though the council of Sardica was not in fact oecumenical, the emperors had intended it to be so, and the Roman canonists call it so in virtue of the general summons. They, however, regard it as an appendage to that of Nice; and probably its canons were from the first added at Rome to those of Nice as supplementary to them, since in the well-known case of Apiarius, the African presbyter (A.D. 417), pope Zosimus quoted them as Nicene; and pope Innocent (A.D. 402) seems previously to have done the same in defending his appellate jurisdiction over Gaul. In the African case the error was eventually exposed by reference to the copies of the Nicene canons preserved at Constantinople and Alexandria, and the Africans thereupon distinctly repudiated the claims of Rome which rested upon this false foundation. But Boniface and Celestine, the successors of Zosimus, refer to these canons as Nicene, as did Leo I. in 449; and this continued to be the Roman position. The persistence of the popes in quoting them as Nicene after the mistake had been discovered is an early instance of Roman unfairness in support of papal claims. It is further a significant fact that in some Roman copies the name of Sylvester was substituted for that of Julius, as if with an intention of throwing their date back to the Nicene period. The scope also of the canons came in time to be unduly extended, being made to involve the power of the pope to summon at his will all cases to be heard before himself at Rome. Our proper conclusion seems to be that, though probably intended by their framers to bind the whole church, their authority was not really adequate to the purpose; and that the popes afterwards appealed to them unfairly in support of their claims by misrepresenting both their authority and their scope. At the close of its sittings the council of Sardica addressed letters to the two emperors, to Julius, to the church of Alexandria, to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and an encyclic "to all bishops." In that to Julius the reason he alleged for not attending—viz. the necessity of remaining in Rome to guard against the schemes of heretics—is allowed as sufficient; and he is presumed to have been present in spirit. The documents sent him and the oral report of his emissaries would inform him of what had been done, but it was thought fit to send him also a brief summary: The most religious emperors had permitted the council to discuss anew all past proceedings, and hence the following questions had been considered: (1) The definition of the true faith; (2) The condemnation or acquittal of those whom the Eusebians had deposed; (3) The charges against the Eusebians themselves of having unjustly condemned and persecuted the orthodox. For full information as to the council's decisions he is referred to the letters written to the emperors; and he is directed, rather than requested ("tua autem excellens prudentia disponere debet, ut per tua scripta," etc.), to inform the bishops of Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily of what had been done, that they might know with whom to hold communion. A list is appended of those excommunicated by the synod. The whole drift of the letter is inconsistent with the council having been convened by the pope himself, or held in his name, or considered dependent on him for ratification of its decrees. He is not even charged with the promulgation of them, except to bishops immediately under his jurisdiction. The only expression pointing to his pre-eminent position is that it would appear to be best and exceedingly fitting ("optimum et valde congruentissimum") that "the head, that is the see of St. Peter," should be informed respecting every single province. Nor is there in the letter to the Alexandrians, or in the encyclic to all bishops, any reference to him as having initiated or taken part in the council; only in the latter a passing allusion to the previous council which he ("comminister poster dilectissimus") had convened at Rome. The letter to Julius is signed, first by Hosius, and then by 58 other bishops, being probably those present at the close of the council. But as many as 284 are given by Athanasius (Apol. contra Arian. 49, 50) as having assented to its decrees and signed its encyclic letter. They include, from various parts of the West with a few from the East 78, from Gaul and Britain 34, from Africa 36, from Egypt 94, from Italy 15, from Cyprus 12, from Palestine 15. Not till Oct. 346, some three years after the council, was Athanasius allowed to return to his see. Before that he again visited Rome, and was again cordially received by Julius, who wrote a letter of congratulation to the clergy and laity of Alexandria, remarkable for its warmth of feeling and beauty of expression. He regards the return at last of their beloved bishop after such prolonged affliction as a reward granted to their unwavering affection for him, shewn by their continual prayers and their letters of sympathy that had consoled his exile, as well as to his own faithfulness. He dwells on the holy character of Athanasius, his resoluteness in defence of the faith, his endurance of persecution, his contempt of death and danger. He congratulates them on receiving him back all the more glorious for his long trials and fully proved innocence. He pictures vividly his welcome home by rejoicing crowds at Alexandria. The letter is the more admirable for the absence of all bitterness towards the persecutors. The only further notice of Julius is of his having received the recantation of Valens and Ursacius, two notable opponents of Athanasius who had been condemned at Sardica. They had already recanted before a synod at Milan, and written a pacific letter to Athanasius; but went also of their own accord, A.D. 347, to Rome, and presented a humble apologetic letter to Julius, and were admitted to communion (Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos , 26; Hilar. Fragm. i.). Their profession however (in which they owned the falsity of their charges against Athanasius and renounced Arian heresy), proved insincere. For when, after the defeat of Constans in 350 and the defeat of Maxentius in 351, the tide of imperial favour began to turn, they recanted their recantation, which they said had been made only under fear of Constans. But Julius, who died Apr. 12, 352, was spared the troublous times which ensued. The fresh charges now got up, and sent to him and the emperor, arrived at Rome too late for him to entertain them. ^[8] His only extant writings are the two letters, to the Eusebians and the Alexandrians, referred to above. Ten decreta are ascribed to him in the collections of Gratian and Ivo. One is interesting for its allusion to certain usages in the celebration of the Eucharist—viz. using milk, or the expressed juice of grapes, instead of wine; administering the bread dipped in the wine, after the manner of the Greeks at the present day; and using a linen cloth soaked in must, reserved through the year and moistened with water, for each celebration. All these are condemned, except the use of the unfermented juice of the grape, in which (it is said) is the efficacy of wine, in case of need, if mixed with water, which is declared always necessary to represent the people, as the wine represents the blood of Christ. Julius was buried, according to the Liberian and Felician Catalogues, "in coemeterio Calepodii ad Callistum" on the Aurelian Way, where he had built a basilica. ^[9]

Liberius (4) , ordained bp. of Rome May 22, 352 (Catalog. Liber. ), as successor to Julius I. The assassination of Constans (a.d. 350) and the subsequent defeat of Magnentius in 351 had left Constantius sole emperor. New charges against Athanasius were sent to the emperor and Julius the pope, and the latter dying before they reached him, the hearing of fell to his successor Liberius. These charges were that Athanasius had influenced Constans against Constantius, corresponded with Magnentius, used an unconsecrated church in Alexandria, and disregarded an imperial summons calling him to Rome (Athan. Apol. ad Constantium ). They were considered, together with an encyclic of 75 Egyptian bishops in behalf of Athanasius, by a council under Liberius at Rome in 352, and on this occasion the first charge of compliance with heresy is alleged against Liberius. Among the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV. ) there is a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius to his "beloved brethren and fellow-bishops throughout the East," declaring that he agrees and communicates with them; and that Athanasius, having been summoned to Rome and refused to come, is out of communion with himself and the Roman church. Bower (Hist. of the Popes ), Tillemont (Vie de S. Athan. t. viii. art. 64, note 68), and Milman ( Lat. Christ. bk. i. c. 2), accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, Hefele ( Conciliengesch. bk. v. § 73)—the last very positively—reject it as an Arian forgery; their principal, if not only, ground being the improbability of his writing it. The death of Magnentius in the autumn of 353 left Constantius entirely free to follow his own heretical bent, when Liberius certainly stood forth as a fearless champion of the cause under imperial disfavour. He sent Vincentius of Capua, with Marcellus, another bp. of Campania, to the emperor, requesting him to call a council at Aquileia to settle the points at issue. Constantius being himself at Arles, summoned one there, which was attended in behalf of Liberius by legates. The main object of the leaders of the council, in which Valens and Ursacius took a prominent part, was to extort from the legates a renunciation of communion with Athanasius. After a fruitless attempt to obtain from the dominant party a simultaneous condemnation of Arius, the legates at length complied. Paulinus of Treves refused, and was consequently banished (Sulp. Sev. l. 2; Hilar. Libell. ad Const. ; id. in Fragm. ; Epp. Liber. ad Const. et Eus. ). Liberius, on hearing the result, wrote to Hosius of Cordova much distressed by the weakness of his messenger Vincentius, and to Caecilianus, bp. of Spoletum (Hilar. Fragm. VI. ). Subsequently (a.d. 354), most of the Western bishops having, under fear or pressure, expressed agreement with the East, Lucifer, bp. of Cagliari, being then in Rome, was, at his own suggestion, sent by Liberius to the emperor, to demand another council. The result was a council at Milan in the beginning of 355, attended by 300 Western bishops and but few Easterns. In spite of the bold remonstrances of Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer, Dionysius of Milan, and others, the condemnation of Athanasius was decreed, and required to be signed by all under pain of banishment. The pope's three legates were among the few who refused and were condemned to exile (see Sulp. Sev. l. 2; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos ). Liberius at Rome still stood firm. He wrote to Eusebius (ap. Act. Eus.) congratulating him on his steadfastness, and sent an encyclic ( ib. et Hilar. Fragm. VI. ) to all the exiled confessors, encouraging them, and expressing his expectation of soon suffering like them. The emperor failed to turn him by threats or bribes. Finally Leontius, the prefect of Rome, was ordered to apprehend him and he was taken to Milan (see Athan. op. cit. c. 35 seq.). Theodoret (l. ii. c. 13) recounts in detail his interview with the emperor there. "I have sent for you," said Constantius, "the bishop of my city, that you may repudiate the madness of Athanasius, whom the whole world has condemned." Liberius continued to insist that the condemnation had not been that of a fair and free council, or in the presence of the accused, and that those who condemned him had been actuated by fear or regard to the emperor's gifts and favour. Liberius having warned the emperor against making use of bishops, whose time ought to be devoted to spiritual matters, for the avenging of his own enmities, the latter finally cut short the discussion by saying, "There is only one thing to be done. I will that you embrace the communion of the churches, and so return to Rome. Consult peace, then, and subscribe, that you may be restored to your see." "I have already," Liberius replied, "bidden farewell to the brethren at Rome; for I account observance of the ecclesiastical law of more importance than residence at Rome." "I give you three days," the emperor said, "to make up your mind: unless within that time you comply, you must be prepared to go where I may send you." Liberius answered, "Three days or three months will make no difference with me: wherefore send me where you please." Two days having been allowed him for consideration, he was banished to Beroea in Thrace (a.d. 355). The emperor sent him, on his departure, 500 pieces of gold, which he refused, saying, "Go and tell him who sent me this gold to give it to his flatterers and players, who are always in want because of their insatiable cupidity, ever desiring riches and never satisfied. As for us, Christ, Who is in all things like unto the Father, supports us, and gives us all things needful." To the empress, who sent him the like sum, he sent word that she might give it to the emperor, who would want it for his military expeditions; and that, if he needed it not, he might give it to Maxentius (the Arian bp. of Milan) and Epictetus, who would be glad of it. Eusebius the eunuch also offered him money, to whom he said, "Thou hast pillaged the churches of the whole world, and dost thou now bring alms to me as a condemned pauper? Depart first, and become thyself a Christian." His banishment was followed by a general triumph of the Arian party. In Alexandria Athanasius was superseded by George of Cappadocia, the orthodox there cruelly persecuted, and Athanasius compelled eventually to take refuge among the hermits and coenobites of Egypt. In Gaul, in spite of the fearless protest of Hilary of Poictiers, the orthodox were persecuted and banished, and there also heresy triumphed. With regard to Rome, we find traces of two conflicting stories, one gathered from the practically unanimous testimony of contemporary or ancient writers of repute, some of whom have been our authorities so far—viz. Athanasius ( Hist. Asian. ad Monach. 75), Jerome ( Chron. in. ann. Abram. mccclx.), Rufinus ( H. E. x. 22), Socrates ( H. E. ii. 37), Sozomen ( H. E. iv. 8, 11), Theodoret ( H. E. ii. 14), together with Marcellinus and Faustus; two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of Rome, in the preface to their Libellus Precum, addressed to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, during the pontificate of Damasus, the successor of Liberius. The other, in conflict therewith, is in the Pontifical and the Acts of Martyrs. From the former authorities we learn that immediately after the exile of Liberius all the clergy, including the deacon FELIX (archdeacon according to Marcellinus and Faustus), swore before the people to accept no other bishop while Liberius lived. The populace, who appear throughout strongly on his side, debarred the Arians from the churches, so that the election of a successor, on which the emperor was determined, had to be made in the imperial palace. The deacon Felix was there chosen and consecrated, three of the emperor's eunuchs representing the people on the occasion, and three heretical bishops, Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, and Basilius of Ancyra being the consecrators. It seems probable that a considerable party among the clergy at least concurred in this consecration. Marcellinus and Faustus say that the clergy ordained him, while the people refused to take part; and Jerome states that after the intrusion of Felix by the Arians very many of the clerical order perjured themselves by supporting him. Felix appears to have been himself orthodox, no distinct charge of heresy being alleged by his accusers; only that of connivance with his own unlawful election by Arians in defiance of his oath, and of communicating with them. Two years after the exile of Liberius (a.d. 357), Constantius went to Rome, and Theodoret tells us that the wives of the magistrates and nobles waited on the emperor, beseeching him to have pity on the city bereaved of its shepherd and exposed to the snares of wolves. Constantius was so far moved as to consent to the return of Liberius on condition of his presiding over the church jointly with Felix. When the emperor's order was read publicly in the circus, there burst forth the unanimous cry, "one God, one Christ, one bishop!" There appears to have been some delay before the actual return of Liberius, who was required to satisfy the emperor by renouncing orthodoxy and Athanasius. This he was now, in strange contrast to his former firmness, but too ready to do. It appears that bp. Fortunatian of Aquileia had been employed by the Eusebians to persuade him (Hieron. Catal. Script. 97), and that Demophilus of Beroea had personally urged him to comply ( Ep. Liber. ad Orient. Episc. ap. Hilar. Fragm. VI. ). Hilary (Fragm. VI. ) gives letters written by Liberius from Beroea at this time. One is to the Eastern bishops and presbyters; from which we give extracts, with Hilary's parenthetical comments: "I do not defend Athanasius: but because my predecessor Julius had received him, I was afraid of being accounted a prevaricator. Having learnt, however, that you had justly condemned him, I soon gave assent to your judgment, and sent a letter to that effect by bp. Fortunatian of Aquileia, to the emperor. Wherefore Athanasius being removed from the communion of us all (I will not even receive his letters), I say that I have peace and communion with you and with all the Eastern bishops. That you may be assured of my good faith in thus writing, know that my lord and brother Demophilus has deigned in his benevolence to expound to me the true Catholic faith which was treated, expounded, and received at Sirmium by many brethren and fellow-bishops of ours. (This is the Arian perfidy:—This I have noted, not the apostate:—the following are the words of Liberius. ) This I have received with a willing mind (I say anathema to thee, Liberius, and thy companions ), and in no respect contradict; I have given my assent, I follow and hold it. (Once more, and a third time, anathema to thee, prevaricator Liberius! ) Seeing that you now perceive me to be in agreement with you in all things, I have thought it right to beseech your holinesses to deign by your common counsel and efforts to labour for my release from exile and my restoration to the see divinely entrusted to me." Another is to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, begging their good offices, and excusing his apparent delay in writing, as above, to the Oriental bishops. Before sending that letter he had already, he says, condemned Athanasius, as the whole presbytery of Rome could testify, to whom he seems to have previously sent letters intended for the emperor's eye. He concludes, "You should know, .most dear brethren, by this letter, written with a plain and simple mind, that I have peace with all of you, bishops of the Catholic church. And I desire you to make known to our brethren and fellow-bishops Epictetus and Auxentius that with them I have peace and ecclesiastical communion. Whoever may dissent from this our peace and concord, let him know that he is separated from our communion." In giving this letter, Hilary again expresses his indignation in a note: "Anathema, I say to thee, prevaricator, together with the Arians." A third is to Vincentius of Capua, the bishop whose defection at Milan he had once so much deplored. In this he announces that he had given up his contention for Athanasius, and had written to say so to the Oriental bishops, and requests Vincentius to assemble the bishops of Campania and get them to join in an address to the emperor, "that I may be delivered from my great sadness." He concludes, "God keep thee safe, brother. We have peace with all the Eastern bishops, and I with you. I have absolved myself to God; see you to it: if you have the will to fail me in my banishment, God will be judge between me and you." No sufficient grounds exist for doubting the genuineness of the fragment of Hilary which contains these letters, or of the letters themselves. It is resolutely denied by Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, Bd. v. § 81) and by the Jesuit Stilting in the work of the Bollandists ( Acts SS. Sept. t. vi. on Liberius), but their arguments are weak, resting chiefly on alleged historical difficulties and on the style of the letters. All the great Protestant critics accept them; and among the Roman Catholics Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin, Ceillier, Montfaucon, Constant, and Möhler. Dr. Döllinger does the same. Dr. Newman also ( Arians of the Fourth Century ) quotes them without any note of suspicion. Baronius accepts the letters to the Eastern bishops and to Vincentius, but rejects that to Valens and Ursacius, though only on the ground of its implied statement that Athanasius had been excommunicated by the Roman church. A refutation of Hefele's arguments is contained in P. le Page Renouf's Condemnation of Pope Honorius (Longmans, 1868), from which an extract, bearing on the subject, is given in Appendix to the Eng. trans. of Hefele's work (Clark, Edin. 1876). Even if the fragment of Hilary could be shewn to be spurious, the general fact of the fall of Liberius would remain indisputable, being attested by Athanasius ( Hist. Arian. 41; Apol. contr. Arian. 89), Hilary ( contra Const. Imp. 11), Sozomen (iv. 15), and Jerome ( Chron. et de Vir. Illustr. 97). It was never questioned till comparatively recent times, when a few papal partisans—especially Stilting ( loc. cit. ), Franz Anton Zaccaria (Dissert. de Commentitio Liberii lapsu ), Professor Palma (Praelect. Histor. Eccles. t. i. pt. ii. Romae, 1838)—have taken up his defence, relying primarily on the silence of Theodoret, Socrates, and Sulpicius Severus on his fall. Others, as Hefele, endeavour to extenuate its extent and culpability. In the letter to the Eastern bishops Liberius speaks of having already accepted the exposition of the faith agreed upon "by many brethren and fellow-bishops" at Sirmium. It is a little uncertain what confession is here meant. There had been two noted synods of Sirmium and both had issued expositions of doctrine. The first in 351, assembled by the Eusebians, adopted a confession which asserted against Photinus and Marcellus of Ancyra the pre-existent divinity of the Son before His human birth and, but for its omission of the term consubstantial, was not heretical. Hilary of Poictiers ( de Syn. 38 sqq.) allows it to be orthodox. Baronius and the Benedictine editors of Hilary (with whom agrees Dr. Döllinger in his Papst-fabeln des Mittelalters ) maintain that this was the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. The formula of the second Sirmian synod, assembled in 357 by Constantius at the instance of the Anomaeans, prohibited both the definitions, homoousios and homoiousios , as being beyond the language of Scripture, and declared the Father to be in honour, dignity, and majesty greater than the Son, and, by implication, that the Father alone may be defined as without beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible. The doctrine expressed was essentially that of the Homoeans, though the phrase "like-unto the Father," from which they got their name, was not yet adopted. This may have been the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. His credit is not much saved by supposing it to have been the former one, since his letters are sufficient evidence of his pliability. Whichever it was, his acceptance was not enough to satisfy the emperor, who, having gone from Rome to Sirmium, summoned him thither, where he was required to sign a new formula, apparently prepared for the occasion. This was, according to Sozomen, concocted from three sources: first, the creed of the old Antiochene council of 269, in which the term consubstantial, alleged to be used heretically so as to compromise the Son's Personality by Paul of Samosta, was condemned; secondly, one of the creeds issued by the Eusebian council at Antioch in 341, which omitted that term; and thirdly, the first Sirmian creed, above described. Sozomen adds that he signed also a condemnation of those who denied the Son to be like the Father according to substance and in all respects. When Liberius is said by some writers to have been summoned from Beroea to the third synod of Sirmium, and to have signed the third Sirmian confession, we must not understand those sometimes so called, viz. of May 359 (when a distinctly Homoean formula, prepared by bp. Mark of Arethusa, was subscribed), but the compilation above described. Liberius was now allowed to return to Rome. Felix was compelled by the populace to retire from the city after tumults and bloodshed. Attempting afterwards to obtain a church beyond the Tiber, he was again expelled. Two ways have been resorted to of excusing, in some degree, the compliance of Liberius. One, taken by Baronius and Hefele, is that the formulae he subscribed were capable of being understood in an orthodox sense, and so subscribed by him, though otherwise intended by the emperor: that "Liberius renounced the formula ὁμοουσιος , not because he had fallen from orthodoxy, but because he had been made to believe that formula to be the cloak of Sabellianism and Photinism" (Hefele). Baronius, however, condemns him so far as to say that his envy of Felix and his longing for the adulation to which he had been used at Rome led to his weakness. The other way is that of Bellarmine, who acknowledges his external but denies his internal assent to heresy: a view which saves his infallibility at the expense of his morality. The facts remain that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed his renunciation of Athanasius and his entire agreement and communion with the Easterns, and that at Sirmium he signed a confession drawn up by semi-Arians, which was intended to express rejection of the orthodoxy for which he had once contended. Athanasius, Sozomen, Hilary, and Jerome all allude to his temporary compliance with heresy in some form as a known and undoubted fact. Athanasius, however, unlike Hilary, speaks of it with noble tolerance. He says, "But they (i.e. certain great bishops] not only supported me with arguments, but also endured exile; among them being Liberius of Rome. For, if he did not endure the affliction of his exile to the end, nevertheless he remained in banishment for two years, knowing the conspiracy against me" ( Apol. contra Arian. 89). Again, "Moreover Liberius, having been banished, after two years gave way, and under fear of threatened death subscribed. But even this proves only their ^[1] violence, and his hatred of heresy; for he supported me as long as he had free choice" ( Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 41). Once in possession of his see and surrounded by his orthodox supporters, Liberius appears to have resumed his old position of resolute orthodoxy. In 359 were held the two councils at Ariminum in the West and Seleucia in the East, resulting in the almost universal acceptance for a time of the Homoean formula, which Constantius was now persuaded to force upon the church in the hope of reconciling disputants. This called forth the famous expression of Jerome ( Dial. adv. Lucifer. 19), "The whole world groaned, and wondered to find itself Arian." Liberius was not present at Ariminum, nor is there any reason to suppose that he assented to the now dominant confession. Jerome's language is rhetorical, and, on the other hand, Theodoret ( H. E. ii. 22) gives a letter from a synod of Italian and Gallican bishops held at Rome under pope Damasus, stating that the Ariminian formula had the assent neither of the bp. of Rome, whose judgment was beyond all others to be expected, nor of Vincentius, nor of others besides. The death of Constantius (a.d. 361) and the accession of Julian the Apostate having left the orthodox free from direct persecution, Athanasius returned once more in triumph to Alexandria (a.d. 362). In the council, famous for its reassertion of orthodoxy, then held at Alexandria, Liberius seems to have taken no prominent part. The glory of restoring orthodoxy and peace to the church is mainly due, not to the bp. of Rome, but to Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Hilary of Poictiers. Liberius comes next under notice in the last year of his episcopate, and during the reign of Valentinian and Valens, who became, at the beginning of 364, emperors of the West and East respectively, Valentinian being a Catholic, Valens an extreme and persecuting Arian. His persecutions extending to the semi-Arians as well as to the orthodox, caused the former to incline to union with the latter and to the position that the difference between them was one rather of words than of doctrine. They came about this time to be called Macedonians, and now turned to the Western emperor and the Roman bishop for support in their distress, sending three bishops as a deputation to Valentinian and Liberius, with instructions to communicate with the church of Rome and to accept the term "consubstantial." Valentinian was absent in Gaul, but Liberius received them (a.d. 366). At first he rejected their overtures because of their implication in heresy. They replied that they had now repented, and had already acknowledged the Son to be in all things like unto the Father, and that this expression meant the same as "consubstantial." He required a written confession of their faith. They gave him one, in which they referred to the letters brought by them from the Eastern bishops to him and the other Western bishops; anathematized Arius, the Sabellians, Patripassians, Marcionists, Photinians, Marcellianists, and the followers of Paul of Samosata; condemned the creed of Ariminum as entirely repugnant to the Nicene faith; and declared their entire assent to the Nicene creed. They concluded by saying that if any one had any charge against them, they were willing it should be heard before such orthodox bishops as Liberius might approve. Liberius now admitted them to communion, and dismissed them with letters, in the name of himself and the other Western bishops, to the bishops of the East who had sent the embassy. Liberius died in the autumn of 366 (Marcell. and Faust.), having thus had a notable opportunity of atoning by his latest official act for his previous vacillation. His extant writings are the letters referred to above. There is also a discourse of his given by St. Ambrose (de Virginibus, lib. iii. c. i) as having been delivered when Marcellina (the sister of Ambrose, to whom he addresses his treatise) made her profession of virginity. The discourse is interesting as containing the earliest known allusion to the keeping of the Christmas festival, while the way in which Ambrose introduces it shews the estimation in which Liberius was held, notwithstanding his temporary fall. ^[2]

Marcellinus (1), bp. of Rome after Caius from June 30, 296, to Oct. 25 (?), 304, elected after a vacancy of about two months; called Marcellianus by Jerome, Nicephorus, and in the Chronogr. Syntomon (853). The above dates are those of the Liberian Catalogue (354) and appear correct. In other records his chronology is very uncertain, partly, it would seem, owing to a confusion between him and his successor Marcellus. He is omitted altogether in the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum and Depositio Martyrum (see Lipsius, Chronol. der röm. Bisch. p. 242). The main question about him is his conduct with regard to the persecution under Diocletian. The Liberian Catalogue says only that it occurred in his time—"quo tempore fuit persecutio." Eusebius ( H. E. vii. 32) intimates that he was in some way implicated in it— ὃν καὶ αὐτὸν κατείληφεν ὁ διωγμός . The Felician Catalogue (530) says: "In which time was a great persecution: within 30 days 16,000 persons of both sexes were crowned with martyrdom through divers provinces; in the course of it Marcellinus himself was led to sacrifice, that he might offer incense, which thing he also did; and having after a few days been brought to penitence, he was by the same Diocletian, for the faith of Christ, together with Claudius Quirinus and Antoninus, beheaded and crowned with martyrdom. The holy bodies lay for 26 days in the street by order of Diocletian; when the presbyter Marcellus collected by night the bodies of the saints, and buried them on the Salarian Way in the cemetery of Priscilla in a cell (cubiculum ) which is to be seen to the present day, because the penitent ^[1] himself had so ordered while he was being dragged to execution, in a crypt near the body of St. Crescentio, vii. Kal. Maii." Most probably the statements of his having offered incense and of the place of his burial are true, but his martyrdom is at least doubtful. The charge of having yielded to the edict of Diocletian, which required all Christians to offer incense to the gods, appears from Augustine to have been alleged afterwards as a known fact by the African Donatists. True, Augustine treats it as probably a calumny, and says it "is by no means proved by any documentary evidence" (de Unico Baptism. c. Petilian. c. 16, § 27). Further, Theodoret ( H. E. i. 2) speaks apparently with praise of the conduct of Marcellinus in the persecution: τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ διαπρέψαντα . On these grounds Bower, in his history of the popes, warmly maintains his innocence. But it is difficult to account for the introduction of the story into the pontifical annals themselves and its perpetuation as a tradition of the Roman church, unless there had been foundation for it. Even Augustine, however anxious to rebut the charge, can only plead the absence of evidence; he does not deny the tradition, or even the possibility of its truth. The expression of Theodoret is too vague to count as evidence. In the story of the martyrdom there is nothing in itself improbable, and it is quite possible that Marcellinus recovered courage and atoned for his temporary weakness. But there is such a significant absence of early evidence of the martyrdom as to leave it not only unproved but improbable. His name does not appear in the Liberian Depositio Martyrum , nor in Jerome's list, and, apart from the legendary complexion of the Felician narrative (including the statement of 16,000 having suffered in 30 days), the addition of the glory of martyrdom to popes in the later pontifical annals is too frequent to weigh against the silence of earlier accounts. Further, the omission of his name also from the Depositio Episcoporum may be due to his unfaithfulness, if that had not really been atoned for by martyrdom. His burial in the cemetery of Priscilla instead of that of Callistus, where his predecessors since Zephyrinus (236) had been interred, may be accepted without hesitation, the Felician Catalogue being apparently trustworthy as to the burial-places of popes, and the place where he lay being spoken of as well known in the writer's day. A reason for the change of place, independent of the alleged wish of the penitent pope himself, is given by De Rossi ( Rom. Sotteran. ii. p. 105), viz. that the Christian cemeteries had been seized during the persecution, so that it had become necessary to construct a new one. It appears ( ib. i. p. 203; ii. p. 105) that the Christians did not recover their sacred places till Maxentius restored them to pope Miltiades; and this accounts for the fact, that of the two popes between Marcellinus and Miltiades, the first, Marcellus, was also buried in the cemetery of Priscilla, but the second, Eusebius, as well as Miltiades himself, again in that of Callistus ( Catal. Felic. ); though not in the old papal crypt, a new one having presumably been constructed by Miltiades. In recensions of the pontifical annals later than the Felician the cemetery of Priscilla is said to have been acquired from a matron of that name by Marcellus, the successor of Marcellinus; but in the Felician account Marcellinus himself appears as having already secured a place of burial there. The cemetery itself was, according to De Rossi, one of the oldest in Rome, with extensive workings in it at a deep level, which he supposes to have been made during the persecution, when the old burial-place of the faithful on the Appian Way was no longer available. The Salarian Way, where the cemetery of Priscilla was, lies far from the Appian, being on the opposite side of the city, towards the N. ^[2]

Marcellus (3), bp. of Rome probably from May 24, 307, to Jan. 15, 309, the see having been vacant after the death of Marcellinus, 2 years, 6 months, and 27 days (Lipsius, Chronologie der röm. Bischöf. ). This pope appears as a martyr in the Roman Martyrology, and in the later recensions of the Liber Pontificalis , a story being told that he was beaten, and afterwards condemned to tend the imperial horses as a slave. No trace of this legend, or indeed of his being a martyr at all, appears in the earlier recensions of the Pontifical, including the Felician. But a light is thrown on the circumstances which probably led to his title of "Confessor" by the monumental inscriptions to him and his successor Eusebius, placed on their tombs by pope Damasus. That to Marcellus (Pagi, Critic. in Baron. ad ann. 309; in Actis S. Januar. ; De Rossi, Rom. Sotter. vi. p. 204) reads: "Veridicus rector lapsis quia crimina flere Praedixit, miseris fuit omnibus hostis amarus. Hinc furor, hinc odium sequitur, discordia lites, Seditio, caedes; solvuntur foedera pacis. Crimen ob alterius, Christum qui in pace negavit, Finibus expulsus patriae est feritate tyranni. Haec breviter Damasus voluit comperta referre Marcelli ut populus meritum cognoscere posset. It would appear from these lines, together with those on Eusebius ^[1], that when persecution ceased at Rome conflicts arose in the Christian community as to the terms of readmission of the lapsi to communion; that Marcellus after his election had required a period of penance before absolution; that this stern discipline evoked violent opposition, the subjects of it being doubtless numerous anal influential; that the church had been split into parties in consequence, and riots, anarchy, and even bloodshed, had ensued; that "the tyrant" Maxentius had interposed in the interests of peace and banished the pope as the author of the discord. He was not really so, the inscription implies, but "another," for whose "crime" he suffered, i.e. the leader and instigator of the opposition, who had "denied Christ in time of peace" by condoning apostasy and subverting discipline after persecution had ceased. But Marcellus was made the victim, and thus was a "confessor" (or, in the wider sense of the word, a "martyr"), if not strictly for the faith, at any rate for canonical discipline and the honour of Christ. The "other" referred to was probably the Heraclius spoken of in the inscription on Eusebius as having "forbidden the lapsi to mourn for their sins," and who was banished in the next episcopate by "the tyrant" as well as the pope—"Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni." As Marcellus, unlike Eusebius, is not said in the Damasine inscription to have died in exile, and as he was certainly buried at Rome, like his predecessor in the cemetery of Priscilla on the Salarian Way ( Catal. Felic. ), he may have been allowed to return to his see. ^[2]

Marcus (6), bp. of Rome, probably from Jan. 18 to Oct. 7, 336, having been ordained 18 days after the death of his predecessor Sylvester. The above dates, from the Liberian Catalogue and Depositio Episcoporum , are confirmed by St. Jerome (Chron. ), who gives him a reign of 8 months, and are consistent with historical events. He is said (Catal. Felic. and Anastasius) to have ordained that the bishops of Ostia should consecrate the bishops of Rome and bear the pallium, and to have been buried in the cemetery of Balbina on the Via Ardeatina, "in basilica quam coemiterium constituit." Baronius notices this as the earliest mention of the pallium. The cemetery of Balbina, called also that of St. Mark from this pope's interment there and variously spoken of in old itineraries as on the Ardeatine and Appian Ways, has been identified as lying between the two by De Rossi, who supposes the "basilica" to have been a chapel, or cella memoriae , built by Marcus at the entrance of an existing cemetery and intended as a place of burial. Interment near the surface of the ground seems about this time to have begun to supersede the use of subterranean catacombs. ^[1]

Martinianus (1) , legendary martyr with PROCESSUS at Rome. According to the Acts of LINUS, these were the two soldiers into whose charge Peter had been given. They were converted by him in prison, and for their baptism, Peter, by making the sign of the cross, caused a fountain, still shewn in the Mamertine prison, miraculously to spring from the rock. After their baptism the two soldiers give Peter as much liberty as he desires, and when news comes that the prefect Agrippa is about to put him to death, earnestly urge him to withdraw. Peter at first complies, but returns to custody in consequence of the well-known vision Domine quo vadis . According to a notice in Praedestinatus (Haer. 86), which has the air of being more historical than most of the stories of that author, their cult was already in vogue in the reign of the pretender Maximus, i.e. before the end of the 4th cent. According to this story, Montanists got temporary possession of their relics and claimed them as belonging to their sect. Lipsius conjectures that their cult began in the episcopate of Damasus, when great exertions were made to revive the memory of the saints of the Roman church. To this period may be referred the Acts of Processus and Martinianus (Bolland. AA. SS. July i. 303). They are clearly later than Constantine, containing mention of offices which did not exist till his time. They are evidently based on the Acts of Linus, but the story receives considerable ornament. Their commemoration is fixed for July 2 in the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great (vol. ii. 114), who also mentions a church dedicated to them, and tells of a miraculous appearance of them ( Hom. in Evang. ii. 32, vol. i. 1586). On the whole subject, see Lipsius ( Petrus-Sage , pp. 137 seq.). ^[1]

Miltiades (2) ( Melchiades ), bp. of Rome after EUSEBIUS, from July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 or 11, 314, the see having been vacant for 10 months and 14 days. The long vacancy is accounted for by the circumstances of his predecessor's death in exile and the divided state of the Roman church at the time. The pontificate of Miltiades was marked by the accession, and so-called conversion, of Constantine the Great, and the definite termination of Diocletian's persecution. To Miltiades the possessions of the Christians at Rome, including the cemeteries, were at length restored by Maxentius: "Melchiades was recorded to have sent deacons with letters from the emperor Maxentius and from the prefect of the Praetorium to the prefect of the city, that they might recover possession of what had been taken away in the time of persecution, and which the aforesaid emperor had ordered to be restored" (Augustine, Brevic. Collat. cum Donat.; die iii. c. 34). Constantine, after the defeat and death of Maxentius (Oct. 28, 312), promulgated at Milan in 313 with Licinius the full edict of toleration known as "the Edict of Milan," which Licinius proclaimed in June 313 at Nicomedia in the East. All these important events were during the episcopate of Miltiades, who would be a personal witness of Constantine's entry into Rome after the battle of the Milvian bridge, with the labarum borne aloft, and the monogram of Christ marked upon the shields of his soldiers. But the pope's name does not become prominent until the complications which soon arose in connexion with the African Donatists. Constantine, according to Optatus, was greatly annoyed at being called upon to settle disputes among the clergy, but he complied with the request, nominating three Gallic bishops whom he commanded to go speedily to Rome to adjudge the matter in conjunction with Miltiades. He wrote a letter preserved by Eusebius, addressed to Miltiades and an unknown Marcus. There is no evidence, in this or other acts of Constantine, that he regarded the bp. of Rome as the sole or necessary judge of ecclesiastical causes on appeal. He was, indeed, careful to refer spiritual cases to the spirituality, and he naturally and properly referred the chief cognizance of a case arising in W. Africa to the Roman see, though not to the pope singly, but to him assisted by assessors whom he named himself. The three bishops of Gaul are named in the letter as colleagues of Miltiades and Marcus, and it appears from Optatus that 15 Italian bishops were added to the conclave, summoned, we may suppose, by Miltiades himself, so that he might hear the case canonically in synod with the assistance of the Gallic assessors. The decisions of the conclave were duly transmitted to Constantine, whom they fully satisfied ( Ep. Constant. ad vicar. Africae; ejusd. ad Episc. Syrac. —Labbe, i. p. 1445; Eus. H. E. x. 5). Moved, however, by the continued complaints of Donatus and his party, he summoned the general synod of Arles (a.d. 314) with a view to a final settlement. In these further proceedings the bp. of Rome does not appear to have been consulted by the emperor, or regarded as possessing any position of supremacy. Constantine, professing great reverence for the episcopate in general, and recognizing the right of the clergy to settle cases purely ecclesiastical, himself set in motion and regulated ecclesiastical proceedings, delegated their administration to such ecclesiastics as he chose, and certainly shewed no peculiar deference to the Roman see. Nor do we find any protest on the part of the church of his day against his mode of procedure. The fact that the conclave under Miltiades met in the Lateran palace (in the house of the empress Fausta) is adduced by Baronius ( A.D. 312) as proving the tradition true that Constantine had made over that palace to the pope as a residence. But it is not known with any certainty when the popes came into permanent possession of the Lateran. Miltiades was, in the time of St. Augustine, accused by African Donatists of having, as one of the presbyters of pope MARCELLINUS, with him given up the sacred books and offered incense under the persecution of Diocletian. Augustine treats the whole charge as unsupported by documentary evidence, and probably a calumny; and we find no mention of any such charge against Miltiades during his life, when the party of Donatus was likely to have made a strong point of it had it been known of them. Further, in the conference with the Donatists held a.d. 411 by order of the emperor Honorius the charge was alleged, but all proof of it broke down (Augustine, u.s. ). Miltiades was buried, as his predecessors since Pontianus till the commencement of persecution had been, in the cemetery of St. Callistus on the Appian Way. There also he had deposited the remains of his immediate predecessor Eusebius (Depos. Episc. Liber. ). Yet neither of these two popes (according to early recensions of the Pontifical) lay in the old papal crypt of that cemetery, but each in a separate cubiculum apart from it. De Rossi supposes the approaches to the old crypt to have been blocked up by the Christians to save it from profanation; and the state in which the passages leading to it have been found confirms this supposition. He has identified positively the cubiculum of Eusebius, but that of Miltiades only conjecturally (see Northcote and Brownlow, Rom. Sotter. p. 146). Miltiades was the last pope buried in this cemetery. ^[1]

Paschasius (3) , deacon of Rome, called by Gregory the Great in his Dialogues , bk. iv. c. 40, "a man of great sanctity." He was a firm supporter of the antipope Laurentius to his death, and his adhesion was a great source of strength to the opponents of Symmachus (cf. Baronius, ann. 498). There is extant a work of his in two books, de Sancto Spiritu ( Patr. Lat. lxii. 9–40), which Gregory ( u.s .) calls "libri rectissimi ac luculenti." The date of his death was c. 512. ^[1]

Pelagius (8) I. , bp. of Rome after Vigilius, in the reign of Justinian I., a.d. 555–560. A native, and deacon, of Rome, he had been appointed by pope AGAPETUS (a.d. 536) as his apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Under Vigilius he again held the same office, and joined with the patriarch Mennas in moving Justinian to issue his edict for the condemnation of Origenism. After this he returned to Rome, where he was one of the two deacons of Vigilius who applied to Ferrandus of Carthage for advice after the issue of the imperial edict "de Tribus Capitulis" (c. 544). Vigilius being summoned by the emperor to Constantinople in the matter of the Three Chapters, Pelagius remained as the archdeacon and chief ecclesiastic at Rome; and occupied this position when the Gothic king Totila (Dec. 546) entered Rome as a conqueror and went to pay his devotions in the church of St. Peter. There Pelagius, bearing the gospels, met him, and falling on his knees said. "Prince, spare thy people." The conqueror answered with a significant smile, "Hast thou now come to supplicate me, Pelagius?" "Yes," he replied, "inasmuch as the Lord has made me thy servant. But now withhold thy hand from these who have passed into servitude to thee." Moved by these entreaties, Totila forbade any further slaughter of the Romans. He also employed Pelagius, together with a layman Theodorus, in an embassy to Constantinople for concluding peace with the emperor, binding them with an oath to do their best in his behalf and to return without delay to Italy. They executed their commission and brought back Justinian's reply that Belisarius was in military command, and had authority to arrange matters (Procop. de Bell. Goth. L. 3). Pope VIGILIUS having proceeded from Sicily on his voyage to Constantinople in the early part of 547, Pelagius joined him, and appears to have acted with him in his changing attitudes of submission or resistance to the emperor's will. He proceeded to Rome after the death of Vigilius at Syracuse, and was there consecrated pope, being supported by Narses, at that time in command of Rome, who acted under the emperor's orders. The appointment was not welcome to the Romans, and there was difficulty in getting prelates to consecrate him. The real cause of his unpopularity was his consenting to condemn the Three Chapters and to support the decisions of the Constantinopolitan council. A great part of the western church still, and for many years afterwards, resolutely rejected these decisions, and the chief recorded action of Pelagius as pope is his unavailing attempt to heal the consequent schism. In Gaul Pelagius was accused of heresy. Consequently the Frank king Childebert sent to him an ambassador, by name Rufinus, requesting him to declare his acceptance of the tome of pope Leo, or to express his belief in his own words. He readily did both, asserting his entire agreement with Leo and with the four councils, and appending a long orthodox confession of faith. But he made no mention of the fifth council, or of the necessity of accepting its decrees. He praised the king for his zeal in the true faith, and expressed the hope that no false reports about himself might occasion any schism in Gaul (Ep. xvi. ad Childebertum ; Ep. xv. ad Sapaudum ). He showed anxiety to conciliate Sapaudus, bp. of Arles, fearing, we may suppose, the possible defection of the Gallican church from Rome. He sent him a short friendly letter (Ep. viii.), and afterwards the pall, and conferred on him the vicariate jurisdiction over the churches of Gaul which former popes had committed to metropolitans of Arles ( Epp. xi. xii. xiii.). He speaks of "the eternal solidity of that firm rock on which Christ had founded His church from the rising to the setting of the sun, being maintained by the authority of his ( i.e. Peter's) successors, acting in person, or through their vicars." And, as his predecessors had, by the grace of God, ruled the universal church of God, he commits to the bp. of Arles, after their example, and according to ancient custom, supreme and exclusive jurisdiction over Gaul, as vicar of the apostolic see. It cannot but strike readers of church history during the reign of Justinian I., and especially of the proceedings of the 5th council, how little the theory of universal spiritual dominion thus enunciated agreed with facts. Indeed Pelagius himself was really throughout his popedom acting as the creature of the emperor, who had defied and overruled the authority of the Roman see. ^[1]

Pelagius (9) II., bp. of Rome after Benedict I., under the emperors Tiberius, Constantine, and Mauricius, from Nov. 578 to Feb. 590. He was a native of Rome, the son of Winigild, and supposed from his father's name to have been of Gothic extraction. At the time of Benedict's death the Lombards, already the masters of a great part of N. Italy, were besieging Rome. Consequently the new pope was consecrated without the previous sanction of the emperor (required since the reign of Justinian). Partly, perhaps, to excuse this informality, as well as to solicit aid against the Lombards, the new pope, as soon as possible after his accession, sent a deputation to Tiberius, who had become sole emperor on the death of Justin II. in Oct. 578. It was doubtless now that Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the Great, was first sent to Constantinople as apocrisiarius of the Roman see. On Oct. 4, 584, Pelagius sent him a letter to represent the lamentable condition of Italy and the imminent danger of Rome from the Lombard invasion; Longinus, the exarch at Ravenna, having been appealed to in vain. Gregory is directed to press on the emperor the urgent need of succour. He returned to Rome probably a.d. 585 (Joan. Diac. ib. ). The emperor Mauricius had engaged the Frank king, Childebert II., for a large pecuniary reward to invade Italy and drive out the Lombards. The invasion (probably a.d. 585) resulted in a treaty of peace between the Franks and Lombards (Greg. Turon. vi. 42; Paul. Diac. de Gest. Longob. iii. 17). On the retirement of Childebert from Italy, it appears that Smaragdus exarch of Ravenna had also concluded a truce with the Lombards (Epp. Pelag. ii.; Ep. i. ad Episcopos Istriae ). Pelagius took advantage of it to open negotiations with the bishops of Istria, who still remained out of communion with Rome in the matter of the Three Chapters. In the first of his three letters he implores them to consider the evil of schism, and return to the unity of the church. He is at pains to vindicate his own faith, and to declare his entire acceptance of the four great councils and of the tome of pope Leo, by way of shewing that his acceptance of the 5th council, and his consequent condemnation of the Three Chapters, involved no departure from the ancient faith. He does not insist on condemnation of the Three Chapters by the Istrian bishops themselves. He only begs them to return to communion with Rome, notwithstanding its condemnation of the same; and this in a supplicatory rather than imperious tone. In his second letter he declares himself deeply grieved by their unsatisfactory reply to his first, and by their reception of his emissaries. He quotes St. Augustine as to the necessity of all churches being united to apostolic sees, but further cites Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae (with interpolations that give the passages a meaning very different from their original one) in support of the peculiar authority of St. Peter's chair. Finally he calls upon the Istrians to send deputies to Rome for conference with himself, or at any rate to Ravenna for conference with a representative; whom he would send; and mentions (significantly, as appears in the sequel) that he has written to the exarch Smaragdus on the subject. Another, called his third, letter to Elias and the Istrian bishops, is a treatise on the Three Chapters, composed for him by Gregory ( de Gest. Longob. iii. 20). Appeals and arguments proving of no avail, Pelagius seems to have called on the civil power to persecute; for Smaragdus is recorded to have gone in person to Grado, to have seized Severus, who had succeeded Elias in the see, together with three other bishops, in the church, carried them to Ravenna, and forced them to communicate there with the bp. John. They were allowed after a year (Smaragdus being superseded by another exarch) to return to Grado, where neither people nor bishops would communicate with them till Severus had recanted in a synod of ten bishops his compliance at Ravenna (Paul. Diac. ib. iii. 27; cf. Epp. S. Greg. l. 1, Ep. 16). Towards the end of the pontificate of Pelagius (probably a.d. 588), a council at Constantinople, apparently a large and influential one, and not confined to ecclesiastics, dealt with Gregory patriarch of Antioch, who being charged with crime, had appealed "ad imperatorem et concilium" (Evagr. H. E. vi. 7). This council is memorable as having called forth the first protest from Rome, renewed afterwards more notably by Gregory the Great, against the assumption by the patriarch of Constantinople of the title "oecumenical." The title itself was not a new one; as an honorary or complimentary one it had been occasionally given to other patriarchs; and Justinian had repeatedly designated the patriarch of Constantinople "the most holy and most blessed archbishop of this royal city, and oecumenical patriarch" ( Cod. i. 7; Novell. iii. v. vi. vii. xvi. xlii.). Nor do we know of any previous objection, and at this council it may have been ostentatiously assumed by the then patriarch, John the Faster, and sanctioned by the council with reference to the case before it, in a way that seemed to recognize jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Antioch. In Nov. 589 a destructive inundation of the Tiber at Rome was followed by a plague, described as "Pestis inguinaria," of which Pelagius II. was one of the earliest victims, being attacked by it in the middle of Jan. 590 (Greg. Turon. l. x. c. 1). According to Anastasius he was buried on Feb. 8 in St. Peter's. ^[1]

Pius I., bp. of Rome after Hyginus in the middle part of 2nd cent. The dates cannot be fixed with certainty, the traditions being contradictory. The Liberian Catalogue and the Felician both name Antoninus Pius (138–161) as the contemporary emperor, as does Eusebius ( H. E. iv. 11). Lipsius ( Chronol. der röm. Bischöf. ), after full discussion of the chronology, assigns from 139 to 154 as the earliest, and from 141 to 156 as the latest, tenable dates. The absence of distinct early records of the early Roman bishops is further shewn by the fact that both the Liberian and Felician Catalogues place Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius. So also Optatus (ii. 48) and Augustine (Ep. 53, ordo novus ). But that the real order was Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, may be considered certain from the authority of Hegesippus (quoted by Eus. H. E. iv. 22), who was at Rome himself in the time of Anicetus, and, when there, made out a succession of the Roman bishops. Irenaeus, who visited Rome in the time of Eleutherus, gives the same order ( adv. Haer. iii. 3; cf. Eus. iv. 1; v. 24; Epipb. adv. Haer. xxvii. 6). The episcopate of Pius is important for the introduction of Gnostic heresy into Rome. The heresiarchs Valentinus and Cerdo had come thither in the time of Hyginus and continued to teach there under Pius (Iren. i. 27, ii. 4; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 11). Marcion of Pontus, who took up the teaching of Cerdo and developed from it his own peculiar system, arrived there after the death of Hyginus (Epiph. Haer. xlii. 1; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 11). Pius, according to the MURATORIAN FRAGMENT (c. 170) and the Liberian Catalogue, was brother to HERMAS, the writer of the Shepherd . Lipsius (op. cit. ) considers this relationship established. Westcott (Canon of N. T. pt. i. c. 2) accepts it, and adduces internal evidence in the work of Hermas itself. Those who maintain the view of the presbyterian constitution of the early Roman church, and of the earliest so-called bishops having been in fact only leading presbyters, to whom a distinct episcopal office was afterwards assigned by way of tracing the succession, would attribute the development of the later episcopal system to the age of Pius, Thus Lipsius speaks of him as the first bishop in the stricter sense ("Bischof im engeren Sinn"). He supposes both Hyginus and Pius to have presided over the college of presbyters, though only as primi inter pares , and the need of a recognized head of the church to resist Gnostic teachers to have led to the latter obtaining a position of authority which, after his time, became permanent. The advocates of this view adduce passages from the Shepherd of Hermas, in which messages are sent in rebuke of strifes for precedence among the Christians at Rome ( Vis. iii. 9; Mandat. ix.; Simil. viii. 7). These strifes are assumed to denote the beginning of struggles for episcopal power in the supposed later sense But there is no evidence in the passages of the strifes having anything to do with such struggles. ^[1] More cogent is the fact that, in the account given by Epiphanius of Marcion's arrival in Rome, he is represented as having applied for communion to the presbyters, without mention of the bishop. Those to whom he applied, and who gave judgment, are called "the seniors (πρεσβῦται ), who, having been taught by the disciples of the apostles, still survived" (adv. Haer. xlii. i); also "the presbyters ( πρεσβῦτεροι ) of that time" (ib. c. 2); also ἐπιεικεῖς καὶ πανάγιοι πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διδάσκαλοι τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας . But these expressions do not disprove the existence of a presiding bishop, acting in and through his synod, who would himself be included in the designation πρεσβύτεροι . For it was not till some time after the apostolic period that the names ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος were used distinctively to denote two orders of clergy. Even Irenaeus, though enumerating the bishops of Rome from the first as distinct from the general presbytery, still speaks of them as presbyters; using in one place (iii. 2, 2) the phrase "successiones presbyterorum," though in another (iii. 3, 1 and 2) "successiones episcoporum." Cf. iv. 26, 2, 3, 5; v. 20, 2; and Ep ad Victorem ( ap. Eus. v. 24); where the bishops before Soter are called πρεσβύτεροι ὁι προστάντες τῆς ἐκκλησίας . Tertullian also (Apol. c. 39) calls bishops and presbyters together seniores. Moreover, the omission by Epiphanius of any mention of a head of the Roman presbytery at the time of Marcion's visit may be due to a vacancy in the see. For it is said to be after the death of Hyginus, with no mention of Pius having succeeded. In such circumstances the college of presbyters would naturally entertain the case. Certainly very soon after the period before us, both Pius and his predecessors from the first were spoken of as having been bishops (however designated) in a distinctive sense, and Anicetus, the successor of Pius, appears historically as such on the occasion of Polycarp's visit to Rome (Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24). Four letters and several decrees are assigned to Pius, of which the first two letters (to all the faithful and to the Italians) and the decrees are universally rejected as spurious. The two remaining letters, addressed to Justus, bp. of Vienne, are accepted as genuine by Baronius, Binius, and Bona, but have no real claims to authenticity. ^[1]0

Pontianus (3) , bp. of Rome from July (?) 21, 230, to Sept. 28, 235. These dates, given in the Liberian Catalogue, are probably correct, though later recessions of the Pontifical give them differently. The same record states that he was, with Hippolytus a presbyter, banished to Sardinia, which it describes as "nociva insula," implying possibly that he was sent to the mines there. His banishment doubtless took place under Maximinus, who succeeded Alexander after the assassination of the latter in May 235. The date, Sept. 28, 235 was probably that of his deprivation only. His only episcopal act of which anything needs to be said is his probable assent to the condemnation of Origen by Demetrius of Alexandria. Jerome (Ep. ad Paulam , xxix. in Benedict. ed.; Ep. xxxiii. in ed. Veron.) says of Origen: "For this toil what reward did he get? He is condemned by the bp. Demetrius. Except the priests of Palestine Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, the world consents to his condemnation. Rome herself assembles a senate ^[1] against him." The condemnation of Origen by Demetrius being supposed (though not with certainty) to have been c. 231, the Roman bishop who assembled the synod was most probably Pontianus. Two spurious epistles are assigned to him. ^[2]

Sebastianus (2), Jan. 20, military martyr at Rome under Diocletian. He was of Milan, where he commanded the first cohort. He confessed Christ, and was shot (apparently) to death with arrows in the camp. He was celebrated in the time of St. Ambrose ( Enarr. in Psalms 118 , No. 44), and is the favourite saint of Italian women, and regarded as the protector against the plague. His symbol is an arrow. ^[1]

Silverius, bp. of Rome during the reign of Justinian I. Agapetus having died at Constantinople when about to return to Italy (on April 22, according to Anastasius) in 536, Liberates tells us ( Breviar. ) that on the news of his death reaching Rome, Silverius, a subdeacon and son of pope Hormisdas, was elected and ordained, doubtless in the same year. According to Anastasius (Lib. Pontif. in Vit. Silverii ) the election of Silverius was forced upon the Romans by the Gothic king Theodatus, who then held the city, the presbyters assenting for the sake of unity. Silverius did not long enjoy his dignity. Belisarius, having got possession of Naples, entered Rome in the name of Justinian on Dec. 10, 536. Vitiges, the successor of Theodatus, commenced a siege of Rome, now in the possession of Belisarius, in Mar 537. Belisarius, after entering Rome, is said in the Hist. Miscell (lib. 16 in Muratori, t. i. pp. 106, 107) to have been reproved and subjected to penance by Silverius for cruel treatment of the Neapolitans; whereas the contemporary historian Procopius ( Bell. Goth. lib. i.) commends the peculiar humanity of Belisarius after the capture of Naples. Vigilius, one of the deacons of Agapetus at Constantinople, had, on that pope's death there, been sent for by the empress Theodora and promised the popedom through the agency of Belisarius on condition of his disallowing, after his elevation, the council of Chalcedon, and supporting the Monophysites whom she favoured. Vigilius, on his arrival in Italy, found Belisarius at Naples, to whom he communicated the commands of Theodora (Liberatus, Breviar. ). Belisarius having gained possession of Rome, Vigilius followed him there and measures were taken to carry out the wishes of the empress. Accusations were laid against Silverius of having been in communication with the Goths who were besieging Rome, and having written to Vitiges offering to betray the city. Summoned before Belisarius, with whom was his wife Antonina, who was the spokeswoman and real agent in these proceedings, he was charged with the crime, and banished to Patara and then to Greece. The emperor, on hearing the facts, asserted himself, ordering his recall to Rome and investigation to be made. But the empress succeeded somehow in keeping her husband quiet. For, on the arrival of Silverius at Rome (as we are informed by Liberatus), Vigilius represented to Belisarius that he could not do what was required of him unless the deposed pope were delivered into his hands. He was thereupon given up to two dependants of Vigilius, under whose custody he was sent to Palmaria in the Tyrrhene sea (or Pontia, according to Martyrol. Rom. and Anastasius), where he died from famine, according to Liberatus and Anastasius. Procopius ( Hist. Arcan. ) speaks of one Eugenius, a servant of Antonina, as having been her instrument in bringing about his death, the expression used seeming to imply a death by violence. Allemann (note on Hist. Arcan. ) argues that the account of Procopius, who was living at Rome at the time and likely to know the facts, is preferable; and attributes the implication of Vigilius to prejudice on the part of Liberatus. Silverius died June 20 (xii. Kal. Jul. al. Jun. Anastas. ), most probably A.D. 538, his deposition certainly occurring in 537. ^[1]

Silvester (1), bp. of Rome after Miltiades, Jan. 31, 314, to Dec. 31, 335. Though his time was important in church history, we have few genuine records of any personal action of his, but a great store of legend. In his first year of episcopate Constantine the Great summoned the first council of Arles to reconsider the decision against the African Donatists of the synod held at Rome by his order in 313 under pope Miltiades. At the council of Arles Silvester was represented by two presbyters, Claudianus and Vitus, and two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus, whose names appear in his behalf fifth among the signatures. Whoever presided, the general conduct of the council seems to have been committed by the emperor to Chrestus, bp. of Syracuse (see a letter to him from Constantine preserved by Eusebius, H. E. x. 5). Certainly Silvester did not preside, nor did any representative in his place. Constantine, in making arrangements for the council, evidently takes no account of him, not even mentioning him in writing to Chrestus. There is indeed a letter of the bishops of the Arles council to Silvester. It opens: "To the most beloved pope Silvester," and concludes in reference to the decrees: "We have thought it fit also that they should be especially made known to all through you, who hold the greater dioceses. " The phrase, "qui majores dioceses tenes," with the consequent desire expressed that the pope should promulgate the decrees, has been used in proof of the pope's then acknowledged patriarchal jurisdiction over the great dioceses (i.e. exarchates) of the western empire. For the word διοίκησις denoted the jurisdiction of a patriarch, larger than that of metropolitans, the word for a diocese in the modern sense being properly παροικία . But it is highly improbable that diocese was used ecclesiastically in this sense so early as 314. Hence Bingham contended ( Ant. ix. i. 12, and ii. 2) that if the passage, "by all acknowledged to be a very corrupt one," be accepted, διοίοκησις must be taken in the sense then generally expressed by παροικία ; and he adduces instances of its use in this sense in canons of Carthaginian councils. But probably the whole epistle (note its general anachronism of tone) is a forgery intended to magnify the Roman see. To the more memorable council of Nicaea in 325 Silvester was invited, but excusing himself on account of age, sent two presbyters, Vitus and Vincentius, as his representatives (Eus. V. C. iii. 7; Socr. H. E. i. 14; Sozs. H. E. i. 17; Theod. H. E. i. 6). The view that they presided in his name, or that (as Baronius maintains) Hosius of Cordova did so, is without foundation. In the subscriptions to the decrees Hosius signs first, but simply as bp. of Cordova, not as in any way representing Rome; after which come those of Vitus and Vincentius, who sign "pro venerabili viro papa et episcopo nostro, sancto Sylvestro, ita credentes sicut scriptum est." The earliest and indeed only authority for Hosius having presided in the pope's name is that of Gelasius of Cyzicus (end of 5th cent.), who says only that Hosius from Spain, "qui Silvestri episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat," together with the Roman presbyters Bito and Vincentius, was present (Gelas. Hist. Concil. Nic. l. ii. c. 5, in Labbe, vol. ii. p. 162). Equally groundless is the allegation first made by the 6th oecumenical council (680), that Silvester in concert with the emperor summoned the Nicene fathers. The gradual growth of this idea appears in the pontifical annals. The catalogue of popes called the Felician (A.D. 530) says only that the synod was held with his consent ("cum consensu ejus"); some later MSS. improve this phrase into "cum praecepto ejus." It is evident from all authentic documents that the synod of Nicaea, as that of Arles, was convened by the sole authority of the emperor, and that no peculiarly prominent position was accorded to the pope in either case. But the most memorable fable about Silvester is that of the baptism of Constantine by him, and the celebrated "Donation." It is, though variously related, mainly as follows: The emperor, having before his conversion authorized cruel persecution of the Christians, was smitten with leprosy by divine judgment. He was advised to use a bath of infants' blood for cure. A great multitude of infants was accordingly collected for slaughter; but the emperor, moved by their cries and those of their mothers, desisted from his purpose. He was thereupon visited in night visions by SS. Peter and Paul, and directed to seek and recall Silvester from his exile in Soracte, who would shew him a pool by immersion in which he would be healed. He recalled the pope, was instructed by him in the faith, cured of his leprosy, and baptized. Moved by gratitude, he made over to the pope and his successors the temporal dominion of Rome, of the greatest part of Italy, and of other provinces, thinking it unfit that the place where the monarch of the whole church and the vicar of Christ resided should be subject to earthly sway. (See Lib. Pontif. in Vit. Sylvestri , and the Lections in Fest. S. Sylvestri in the Breviaries of the various uses). The earliest known authority for the whole story appears to be the Acta Sylvestri (see below). The attribution of Constantine's conversion and baptism to Silvester is as legendary as the rest. His profession and patronage of Christianity were anterior to the time spoken of, and he was not actually baptized till long afterwards, at the close of his life. There is abundant testimony that he did not seek baptism, or even imposition of hands as a catechumen, till in a suburb of Nicomedia, as death drew near, he received both from Eusebius, the Arian bishop of that see. (Eus. V. C. iv. 61, 62; Theod. i. 32; Soz. ii. 34, iv. 18; Socr. i. 39; Phot. Cod. 127; Ambrose, Serm. de obit. Theodos. ; Hieron. Chron. an. 2353; Council of Rimini .) The Acta S. Sylvestri , which seem to have furnished the materials for most of the legends—including the banishment to Soracte, the leprosy of Constantine, his lustration by Silvester, and his Donation—are mentioned and approved as genuine in the Decretum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis , commonly attributed to pope Gelasius (492–496), but probably of a later date. They are quoted in the 8th cent. by pope Hadrian in a letter to Charlemagne, where the Donation is alluded to, and in another to the empress Irene and her son Constantine on the occasion of the 2nd Nicene council in 787. The original Acts have not been preserved. The extant editions of them, given in Latin by Surius (Acta SS. Dec. p. 368), and in Greek by Combefis ( Act. p. 258), purport to be only compilations from an earlier document. Silvester died on Dec. 31, 335, and was buried in the cemetery of St. Priscilla. ^[1]

Simplicius (7), bp. of Rome after Hilarius, from Feb. 22, 468 (according to the conclusion of Pagi, in Baron. ad ann. 467, iv.), to Mar 483. According to Lib. Pontif. he was a native of Tibur, the son of one Castinus. He witnessed, during his episcopate, the fall of the Western empire and the accession (a.d. 476) of Odoacer as king of Italy. This change, however politically important, does not seem to have affected at the time the pope or the church at Rome. The later emperors, Anthemius, Nepos, Augustulus, who reigned during the earlier years of Simplicius's popedom, being merely nominees of the Eastern emperor, had little power; and Odoacer, himself an Arian, did not interfere with church affairs. The reigning emperors of the East were, first Leo I., the Thracian, called also "the Great," and after him Zeno, his son-in-law, who succeeded him a.d. 474, but whose reign was interrupted from 475 to 477 by the usurpation of Basiliscus. The contemporary bp. of Constantinople was Acacius (471–489). The most memorable incidents of the pontificate of Simplicius were his negotiations, and eventual breach, with this prelate and with the emperor Zeno who supported him leading up to the long schism between the churches of the East and West, which ensued in the time of the following pope, FELIX III (or II.). The difference arose on questions connected partly with the rival claims of the sees of Rome and Constantinople, partly with the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy. The first occasion was the promulgation of an edict by the emperor Leo I., at the instance of Acacius, confirming the 28th canon of Chalcedon. This canon, said to have been passed unanimously by all present except the legates of pope Leo I., not only confirmed the 3rd canon of Constantinople, which had given to the bp. of new Rome (i.e. Constantinople) a primacy of honour (i.e. honorary rank) next after the bp. of old Rome, but further gave him authority to ordain the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, thus investing him with the powers as well as the rank of a patriarch, second only to the pope of Rome. Pope Leo had subsequently objected to this canon and never gave it his assent. He claimed that it was an infringement of the canons of Nice and entrenched on the rights of other patriarchs. It indicated a desire on the part of the bps. of Constantinople, then the real seat of empire, to rival and perhaps eventually to supersede the old primacy of Rome. At Rome the position maintained was that the authority of a see rested on its ecclesiastical origin, and that of Rome especially on its having been the see of St. Peter. The view at Constantinople was that the temporal pre-eminence of a city was a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical ascendancy. Hence the long struggle. Acacius, by inducing the emperor to confirm the 28th canon of Chalcedon by a special edict, hoped to make it plain that the eminence and authority thereby assigned to his see were still maintained and had not been conceded to the remonstrances of pope Leo. The language used by the emperor in his edict—styling the church of Constantinople "the Mother of his Piety, and of all Christians, and of the orthodox faith"—confirms the supposition that an idea was even entertained of the new seat of empire superseding the old one in ecclesiastical prerogative as well as temporal rank. Simplicius naturally took alarm. He sent Probus, bp. of Canusium in Apulia, as his legate to Constantinople to remonstrate; but with what success we know not. In the doctrinal controversies of the day between Rome and Constantinople, Simplicius appears to have been in accord with the emperor Leo, and for some time with Zeno, as well as with Acacius. The great patriarchal sees were, during the first years of his reign, occupied by orthodox prelates, who had the imperial support. Alexandria had been held by Timothy Salofaciolus since the Eutychian Timothy Aelurus had been banished by the emperor Leo I. in 460. At Antioch Julian, an orthodox patriarch, elected on the expulsion of Peter Fullo by Leo I., a.d. 471, was still in possession. But the usurpation of the empire by Basiliscus, a.d. 475, introduced immediate discord and disturbance. Basiliscus declared at once for Eutychianism, and promptly recalled Timothy Aelurus to Alexandria. Having taken possession of the see and driven Salofaciolus to flight, Aelurus repaired to Constantinople to procure the calling of a new general council to reverse the decisions of Chalcedon. Certain clergy and monks of Constantinople sent a messenger with letters to represent this state of things to Simplicius at Rome. Simplicius promptly wrote to Basiliscus and Acacius. His letter to Basiliscus expresses horror at the doings of Aelurus, of whom he speaks in no measured language. The opportunity is not lost, in the course of the letter, of insinuating to the new emperor the peculiar spiritual authority of the Roman see: "The truths which have flowed pure from the fountain of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed by any arguments of cloudy subtilty. For there remains one and the same rule of apostolical doctrine in the successors of him to whom the Lord enjoined the care of the whole sheepfold—to whom He promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against him, and that what by Him should be bound on earth should not be loosed in heaven." And the pope conjures the emperor in the voice of St. Peter, the unworthy minister of whose see he is, not to allow impunity to the enemies of the ancient faith, and especially urges him to prevent, if possible, the assembling a council to review the decisions of Chalcedon. Meanwhile Basiliscus at Constantinople, issuing an encyclic letter, repudiated and condemned the council of Chalcedon; required all, under pain of deposition, exile, and other punishments, to agree to this condemnation; and ordered the copies of pope Leo's letters and of the Acts of Chalcedon, wherever found, to be burnt. The document is given in full by Evagrius (iii. 4). Acacius refused to sign it. But in the compliant East elsewhere it was accepted generally. At Constantinople Acacius, supported by the clergy and monks, was resolute and successful in his resistance. Daniel Stylites, descending from his pillar, aided in rousing the populace; and Basiliscus had to leave the city for safety. The disaffection was taken advantage of by Zeno, who in 477 marched on Constantinople, and without further difficulty became again emperor of the East. During these troubles under Basiliscus Simplicius seems to have had no opportunity of exercising influence; but as soon as he heard of the restitution of Zeno he wrote to that emperor, exhorting him to follow the steps of his predecessors Marcian and Leo, to allow no tampering with the decisions of Chalcedon, to drive all Eutychian bishops from the sees they had usurped, and especially to send Aelurus into solitude. To Acacius he wrote to the same effect. Zeno does not appear, however, to have taken any step against Peter Mongus. Possibly the emperor and his advisers were already disposed to the conciliatory policy towards the Eutychians which they afterwards maintained in spite of indignant protests from the pope. Simplicius complained, too, of the Eutychian leaders having been allowed to remain at Antioch, and attributed the troubles there to this cause. The death of Timothy Salofaciolus at Alexandria in 482 gave rise to much more serious differences between Constantinople and Rome. Strained relations now resulted in decided conflict, ending in an open schism, which lasted 35 years, between Eastern and Western Christendom. John Talaias was elected canonically by a synod of the orthodox at Alexandria in the room of Salofaciolus. Simplicius received a notification of the election from the synod, and was about to express his assent, when he was startled by a letter from Zeno accusing Talaias of perjury, and intimating that Peter Mongus was the most proper person to succeed Salofaciolus. Simplicius at once (July 15, 482) addressed Acacius (who had not written himself), imploring him to do all he could to prevent it. The letter written to Zeno himself has not been preserved. Hearing nothing from Acacius, he wrote to him again in Nov., but still got no reply. So much appears from the extant letters of Simplicius (Epp. xvii. xviii. Labbe). ^[1] Liberatus (c. 18) informs us that, driven from Alexandria, John Talaias appealed for support to Simplicius, who on his behalf wrote to Acacius, but received the reply that Acacius could not recognize Talaias, having received Peter Mongus into communion on the basis of the emperor's HENOTICON. Simplicius wrote to Acacius that he ought not to have received Peter into communion without the concurrence of the apostolic see; that a man condemned by a common decree could not be freed from the ban except by a common council; and that he must first accept unreservedly the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope Leo. Simplicius received no reply to this second letter, and died not long after, early in Mar 483, according to Anastasius. ^[2]

Siricius, bp. of Rome after Damasus from late in Dec. 384, or early in Jan. 385, to Nov. 26 (?), 398. He followed the example of Damasus in maintaining the authority of the Roman see. When the prefecture of East Illyricum had been assigned (a.d. 379) to the Eastern division of the empire, Damasus had insisted on its being still subject to the spiritual authority of Rome, and had constituted Acholius, bp. of Thessalonica, and after him Anysius (who succeeded Acholius a.d. 383) his own vicars for the maintenance of such authority. Siricius, on his accession, renewed this vicariate jurisdiction to Anysius (Innoc. Epp. i., xiii.). One of his earliest acts was to issue the first Papal Decretal that has any claim to genuineness, though he speaks in it of earlier decreta sent to the provinces by pope Liberius. It is dated Feb. 11, 385. Its genuineness is undisputed. It is plainly referred to by pope Innocent I. ( Ep. vi. ad Exsuperium ). Quesnel includes it without hesitation in his Cod. Rom. cum Leone edit. c. 29. Its occasion was a letter from Himerius, bp. of Tarragona in Spain, addressed to Damasus but received by Siricius, asking the pope's advice on matters of discipline and with regard to abuses prevalent in the Spanish church. Siricius, having taken counsel in a Roman synod, issued this decretal in reply, to be communicated by Himerius to all bishops of Spain and neighbouring provinces with a view to universal observance. The opportunity was taken of asserting in very decided terms the authority of the Roman see: "We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us, who, as we trust, in all things protects and guards us, the heirs of his administration." Among the rules thus promulgated for universal observance, one relates to the rebaptizing of Arians returning to the church, and another to clerical celibacy, which is insisted on. Thus what the oecumenical council had refused to require Siricius now, on the authority of the apostolic see, declared of general obligation. The rule laid down by him affected, however, only the higher clerical orders, not including subdeacons, to whom it was extended by Leo I. (c. 442. See Epp. xiv. 4; cxlvii. 3), in Sicily, by pope Gregory the Great (Greg. Epp. lib. i. Ind. ix., Ep. 42). The zeal of Siricius against heresy appears in his correspondence with the usurper Maximus, who in 383 had obtained the imperial authority in Gaul. The pope wrote, exhorting him to support the Catholic faith and complaining of the recent ordination of one Agricius, who seems to have been suspected of heresy. Maximus, in his extant reply, declares his desire to maintain the true faith, undertakes to refer the case of Agricius to a synod of clergy, and takes credit for measures already in force against the Manicheans in Gaul, doubtless alluding to the Priscillianists, who were often called Manicheans. The pope was zealous against the Manicheans at Rome, where "he found Manicheans, whom he sent into exile, and provided that they should not communicate with the faithful, since it was not lawful to vex the Lord's body with a polluted mouth" (Lib. Pontif. in Vita. Sisicii ). The reference seems to be to the alleged habit of the Manicheans to make a show of conformity by frequenting Catholic communion. It is added that even converts from them were to be sent into monasteries, and not admitted to communion till at the point of death. Another class of heretics afterwards fell under the condemnation of Siricius. Jovinian, notorious through St. Jerome's vehement writings against him, having been expelled from Milan, had come to Rome and obtained a following there. His teaching came under the notice of two eminent laymen, Pammachius and Victorinus, who represented it to pope Siricius who assembled a synod of clergy at which Jovinian was excommunicated, together with his abettors, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Frontinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingenius. These departed to Milan, whither Siricius sent three presbyters with a letter to the Milanese clergy, informing them of what had been done at Rome, and expressing confidence that they would pay regard to it. The letter is full of strong invective against Jovinian and his colleagues—"dogs such as never before had barked against the church's mysteries"—but contains no arguments. Siricius disclaims any disparagement of marriage, "at which," he says, "we assist with the veil," though he "venerates with greater honour virgins devoted to God, who are the fruit of marriages." The synodical reply from Milan is preserved among the epistles of St. Ambrose (Ep. xlii. ed. Bened.), who presided at the Milanese synod. He and his colleagues thank Siricius for his vigilance, concur with his strictures on Jovinian, supply the arguments which the pope's letter lacked, and declare that they had condemned those whom the pope condemned, according to his judgment. The introductory words of this epistle have been adduced in proof of the view then held of the pope's supreme authority. They are: "We recognize in the letter of your holiness the watchfulness of a good shepherd, diligently keeping the door committed to thee, and with pious solicitude guarding the sheepfold of Christ, worthy of being heard and followed by the sheep of the Lord." This language, though expressing recognition of the bp. of Rome as the representative of St. Peter, cannot be pressed as implying that he was the one doorkeeper of the whole church or an infallible authority in definitions of faith. On the contrary, the bishops at Milan endorsed his judgment, not as a matter of course or as being bound to do so, but on the merits of the case, setting forth their reasons. These proceedings apparently occurred in 390. About the same time, or soon after, the Meletian schism at Antioch came under the notice of Siricius. His attitude to it is not certainly known. Some six months after the death of Damasus, whose highly valued secretary he had been, Jerome had left Rome for ever. In his bitterly expressed letter to Asilla, inveighing against his opponents and calumniators, he does not mention the new pope; but it may be concluded, if only from his silence, that he had lost the countenance he had enjoyed under Damasus. One expression suggests that he had been a little disappointed at not being made pope himself, and that coolness between him and Siricius may have arisen from this. Siricius and he were at one in their advocacy of virginity against Jovinian and in their general orthodoxy, but there seems to have been no intercourse between them, and, even in the course of the controversy against Jovinian, Siricius appears to have joined others at Rome in disapproving of Jerome's alleged disparagement of matrimony. Further, Rufinus, the once close friend of Jerome, having quarrelled with him in Palestine about Origenism but been temporarily reconciled, in 395 left Jerusalem for Rome. He was favourably received by Siricius, who gave him a commendatory letter on his departure, the quarrel with Jerome having recommenced with increased violence. For his neglect of Jerome and patronage of Rufinus, Baronius disparages Siricius, even saying that his days were shortened by divine judgment (Baron. ad ann. 397; xxxii.). A further ground of complaint ( ad ann. 394; xl.) is his supposed unworthy treatment of another ascetic saint, Paulinus of Nola, who says he was badly treated by the Roman clergy when passing through Rome (a.d. 395) on his way to Nola, and especially blames the pope (Paulin. ad Sulpic. Severum, Ep. i. in nov. edit. v.). For such reasons Baronius has excluded Siricius from the Roman Martyrology. Pagi (in Baron ad ann. 398, 1) defends the pope against the animadversions of Baronius. Siricius died in 398. ^[1]

Sixtus I. —so called in the Liberian Catalogue by Optatus (l. 2) and Augustine (Ep. liii.); but Xystus, Xistus , or Xestus , in Catal. Felic. , Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), Eusebius ( H. E. iv. 4, 5, and Chron. ), Epiphanius (Haer. 97, 6)—one of the early bps. of Rome, called the 6th after the apostles, and the successor of Alexander. All assign him an episcopate of about 10 years, and place him in the reign of Hadrian. Catal. Liber. dates his episcopate 117–126; Eusebius ( H. E. ) 119–128; his Chronicle 114–124. Lipsius ( Chronol. der röm. Bischöf. ) gives 124–126 as the possible limits for his death. The Felician Catalogue and the Martyrologies represent him as a martyr, and he is commemorated among the apostles and martyrs, after Linus, Cletus, Clemens, in the canon of the mass. But Telesphorus being the first bp. of Rome designated a martyr by Irenaeus, the claim to the title of Sixtus and other early bps. of Rome, to the great majority of whom it has been since assigned, is doubtful. ^[1]

Sixtus II. ( Xystus ), bp. of Rome after Stephen for about one year, martyred under Valerian Aug. 6, 258. A contemporary letter of St. Cyprian (Ep. 80) confirms this date as given in the Liberian Catalogue. Probably his accession was on Aug- 31, 257 (see Lipsius, Chronol. der röm. Bischöf. ). His predecessor Stephen had been at issue with Cyprian of Carthage as to the rebaptism of heretics. Under Xystus, who was more conciliatory, though he upheld the Roman usage, peace was restored (Eus. H. E. vii. 5–7). The circumstances of his martyrdom appear to have been as follows. The emperor Valerian had already, before the accession of Xystus, forbidden the resort of Christians to the cemeteries on pain of banishment. But in the middle of 258, when Valerian was arming for his Persian war, he sent a rescript to the senate of much severer import; ordering bishops, priests, and deacons to be summarily executed; senators and other persons of rank to be visited with loss of dignity and goods, and, on refusal to renounce Christianity, with death; matrons to be despoiled and exiled; and imperial officials (Caesarians ) to be sent in chains to labour on the imperial domains (Cyp. Ep. 80). Xystus fell an early victim to this rescript. He was found by the soldiers seated on his episcopal chair, in the cemetery of Praetextatus on the Appian Way, surrounded by members of his flock. As these endeavoured to protect him, he thrust himself forward lest they should suffer in his stead, and was beheaded and several companions slain. His body was afterwards removed by the Christians to the usual burial place of the bishops of that period, the neighbouring cemetery of Callistus. His two deacons, Agapetus and Felicissimus, with others, were buried in the cemetery where they fell. This account of the occurrence is gathered from Cyprian's contemporary letter to Successus ( Ep 80 ), and from the Damasine inscription in the papal crypt of the cemetery of Callistus, of which a few fragments have been found by De Rossi, and which originally began as follows: "Tempore quo gladius secuit pia viscera matris Hic positus rector coelestia done docebam . . ." (Gruter, 1173, 13) That these verses refer to Xystus, and not, as assumed in the Acts of St. Stephen, to his predecessor, is satisfactorily shewn by Lipsius (op. cit. ). That he was buried there is expressly stated in the Liberian Catalogue of Martyrs, as well as by all later authorities; and the statement is confirmed by numerous graffiti on the walls of the crypt, in which his name is prominent. The line "Hic positus," etc., may refer to the cathedra on which he sat when found by the soldiers, which had been removed with his body to the papal crypt. That the cemetery of Praetextatus was the scene of his martyrdom ancient tradition bears witness, and in accordance with it an oratory was afterwards built on the spot, "coemeterium ubi decollatus est Xystus." The tradition is confirmed by representations of him and his chair in this cemetery, under one of which is the legend SVSTVS. ^[1]

Soter, bp. of Rome after Anicetus, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, during 8 or 9 years. Lipsius ( Chronol. der röm. Bischöf. ) gives 166 or 167 and 174 or 175 as the probable dates of his accession and death. In his time the Aurelian persecution afflicted the church, though there is no evidence of Roman Christians having suffered under it. But they sympathized with those who did. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 23) quotes a letter from Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, to the Romans, acknowledging their accustomed benevolence to sufferers elsewhere, and the fatherly kindness of bp. Soter: "From the beginning it has been your custom to benefit all brethren in various ways, to send supplies to many churches in every city, thus relieving the poverty of those that need, and succouring the brethren who are in the mines. This ancient traditional custom of the Romans your blessed bp. Soter has not only continued, but also added to, in both supplying to the saints the transmitted bounty, and also, as an affectionate father towards his children, comforting those who resort to him with words of blessing." The unknown author of a book called Praedestinatus (c. 26) states that Soter wrote a treatise against the Montanists. But the writer is generally so unworthy of credit that his testimony is of no value. ^[1] As to the Easter dispute between Rome and the Asian Quartodecimans, it seems probable that Soter was the first bp. of Rome who was unwilling to tolerate the difference of usage. His immediate predecessor Anicetus had communicated with Polycarp when at Rome; but Victor, who succeeded Soter's successor Eleutherus, incurred the reproof of St. Irenaeus and others for desiring the general excommunication of the Asiatic churches on account of the dispute; and Irenaeus, in remonstrating with Victor, refers only to bps. of Rome before Soter, mentioning them by name, and ending his list with Anicetus, as having maintained communion with the Quartodecimans (Eus. H. E. v. 24). ^[2]

Stephanus (1) I., bp. of Rome, after Lucius, from May 12, 254, to Aug. 2, 257. These dates are arrived at by Lipsius ( Chron. der röm. Bischöf. ) after careful examination. Those given by the ancient catalogues are erroneous and conflicting. If Lucius died, as is supposed, on Mar 5, 254, Stephen was appointed after a vacancy of 61 days. At the time of his accession the persecution of the church, begun by Decius and renewed by Gallus, had ceased for a time under Valerian. The internal disputes as to the reception of the lapsi , which had given rise to the schism of NOVATIAN, still continued. In the autumn of 254 a council was held at Carthage, the first during the episcopate of Stephen, on the matter of two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, deposed for compliance with idolatry. Basilides had been to Rome to represent his case to Stephen and procure reinstatement in his see; and Stephen had apparently supported him. The synodical letter of the council (drawn up, without doubt, by Cyprian) confirmed the deposition of the two prelates and the election of their successors, on the ground that compliance with idolatry incapacitated for resumption of clerical functions, though not for reception into the church through penance. The action of Stephen was put aside as of no account, though excused as due to the false representations of Basilides (Cyp. Ep. 67). A letter from Cyprian to Stephen himself, probably written soon after the council and in the same year, is further significant of the relations between Carthage and Rome. Stephen seems to have been determined to act independently in virtue of the supposed prerogatives of his see, while Cyprian shews himself equally determined to ignore such prerogatives. The subject of the letter is Marcian, bp. of Arles, who had adopted Novatianist views, and whose deposition Stephen is urged to bring about by letters to the province and people of Arles. The letter shews that Faustinus of Lyons had repeatedly written to Cyprian on the subject, having also, together with other bishops of the province, in vain solicited Stephen to take action. While allowing that it rested with the bp. of Rome to influence with effect the Gallic provinces, Cyprian is far from conceding him any prerogative beyond that of the general collegium of bishops, by whose concurrent action, according to his theory, the true faith and discipline of the Church Catholic was to be maintained. In praising the late bps. of Rome, Cornelius and Lucius, whose example he exhorts Stephen to follow, Cyprian seems to imply a doubt whether the latter was disposed to do his duty ( ib. 68). A new question of dispute, that of the rebaptism of heretics, led to an open rupture between Rome and Carthage, in which the Asian as well as the African churches sided with Cyprian against Rome. The question was raised whether the adherents of Novatian who had been baptized in schism should be rebaptized when reconciled to the church (ib. 69 ad Magnum ). But it soon took the wider range of all cases of heretical or schismatical baptism. It had been long the practice in both Asia and Africa to rebaptize heretics, and the practice had been confirmed by synods, including the first Carthaginian synod under Agrippinus. Cyprian (Ep. 73, ad Jubaianum ) does not trace the African custom further back than Agrippinus, but he insisted uncompromisingly on the necessity of rebaptism, and was supported by the whole African church. At Rome admission by imposition of hands only, without iteration of baptism, seems to have been the immemorial usage, the only alleged exception being what Hippolytus states (Philosophum. p. 291) about rebaptism having been practised in the time of Callistus. Stephen took a view opposite to that of Cyprian. Cyprian would baptize all schismatics, whether heretical in doctrine or no; Stephen would apparently rebaptize none, whatever their heresies or the form of their baptism (Cyp. Ep. 74). The first council of Carthage on the subject, held in 255, issued a synodal letter supporting Cyprian's position. Cyprian then sent to Stephen a formal synodal letter, agreed on in a synod at Carthage, probably at Easter, 256, in which the necessity of baptizing heretics and of the exclusion from clerical functions of apostate clergy on their readmission into the church, is urged. But the tone of the letter is not dictatorial. Stephen may retain his own views if he will without breaking the bond of peace with his colleagues, every prelate being free to take his own line, and responsible to God (Ep. 72). Stephen's reply, written, according to Cyprian, "unskilfully and inconsiderately," contained things "either proud, or irrelevant, or self-contradictory." Cyprian charges Stephen with "hard obstinacy," "presumption and contumacy," referring, by way of contrast, to St. Paul's admonition to Timothy, that a bishop should not be "litigious," but "mild and docile," and replying to the arguments advanced by Stephen. Stephen had so far apparently not broken off communion with those who differed from him (Ep. 74). Cyprian summoned a plenary council of African, Numidian, and Mauritanian bishops, numbering 87, with presbyters and deacons, in the presence of a large assembly of laity, which met on Sept. 1, 256. Cyprian and other bishops separately gave their opinions, unanimously asserting the decision of the previous synod. But Cyprian was careful, in his opening address, to repudiate any intention of judging others or breaking communion with them on the ground of disagreement. After this great council, probably towards the winter of 256, Firmilian, bp. of Neocaesarea, wrote his long letter to Cyprian, from which it appears that Stephen had by this time renounced communion with both the Asian and African churches, calling Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle, a deceitful worker. The question has been raised whether Stephen's action was an excommunication of the Eastern and African churches, or only a threat. H. Valois and Baronius say the latter only; but Firmilian's language seems to imply more, and so Mosheim ( Comm. de Rebus Christian. pp. 538 seq.) thinks. Routh and Lipsius also hold that excommunication was pronounced. Stephen claimed authority beyond other bishops as being St. Peter's successor, and took much amiss Cyprian's independent action; Cyprian, supported by all the African and Asian churches, utterly ignored any such superior authority; his well-known position being that, though Christ's separate commission to St. Peter had expressed the unity of the church, this commission was shared by all the apostles and transmitted to all bishops alike. Unity, according to his theory, was to be maintained, not by the supremacy of one bishop, but by the consentient action of all, allowing considerable differences of practice without breach of unity. Stephen seems to have taken the position, carried to its full extent by subsequent popes, of claiming a peculiar supremacy for the Roman see, and requiring uniformity as a condition of communion. The arguments of Stephen were mainly these: "We have immemorial custom on our side, especially the tradition of St. Peter's see, which is above all others. We have also Scripture and reason on our side; St. Paul rejoiced at the preaching of the gospel, and recognized it, though preached out of envy and strife. There is but one baptism; to reiterate it is sacrilege, and its efficacy depends, not on the administrators, but on the institution of Christ; whoever, then, has been once baptized in the name of Christ, even by heretics, has been validly baptized, and may not be baptized again." Cyprian's answer was: "As to your custom, however old, it is a corrupt one, and not primitive; no custom can be set against truth, to get at which we must go back to the original fountain. Scripture is really altogether against you; those at whose preaching of the gospel St. Paul rejoiced were not schismatics, but members of the church acting from unworthy motives; he rebaptized those baptized only unto St. John's baptism, without acknowledgment of the Holy Ghost; he and the other apostles regarded schism and heresy as cutting men off from Christ; the Catholic Church is one, `a closed garden, a fountain sealed'; outside it there is no grace, no salvation, consequently no baptism; people cannot confer grace if they have not got it; we do not reiterate baptism, for those whom we baptize have not previously been baptized at all; it is you that make two baptisms in allowing that of heretics as well as that of the church." Stephen's martyrdom under Valerian is asserted in the Felician Catalogue, but not in the earlier Liberian Catalogue. ^[1]

Symmachus (9), bp. of Rome from Nov. 498, to July, 514, when Theodoric the Ostrogoth was king of Italy and Anastasius emperor in the East. For the circumstances of his election see LAURENTIUS (10). The virulence of the two opposed parties is accounted for by the fact that they represented two opposite policies with regard to the then existing schism between the Western and Eastern churches. Laurentius was elected in the interests of the policy of concession to Constantinople and the East, which the previous pope, Anastasius II., had favoured; Symmachus for the maintenance of the unbending attitude taken by Felix III. when the schism first began. Several extant letters of Symmachus refer to the rivalry between the Gallic sees of Arles and Vienne. ^[1] Anastasius II., the predecessor of Symmachus, had sanctioned some invasion, on the part of Vienne, of the jurisdiction assigned to Arles by Leo. After the accession of Symmachus, Eonus, then the primate of Arles, complained to him, apparently in 499, of Avitus of Vienne having, under such sanction, ordained bishops beyond his proper jurisdiction. The reply of Symmachus shews an evident readiness to impute blame to Anastasius (whose whole policy, with regard to the East, he had been elected to counteract), and is remarkable as a decided repudiation by a pope of the action of a predecessor. He lays down the principle that the ordinances of former popes ought not to be varied under any necessity, as those of Leo had been by Anastasius, and must be now maintained. He, however, requires both Eonus and Avitus to send full statements of their case to Rome; and in his letter to Avitus, while he repeats that the confusion introduced by Anastasius was not to be tolerated, he invites Avitus to state any reasons for some equitable dispensation under existing circumstances. It was not till 513 that we find the bp. of Arles finally confirmed in the rights accorded to his see by pope Leo; Caesarius having then succeeded Eonus. Symmachus then wrote to this effect to the bishops of Gaul, and in 514 to Caesarius, warning him to respect the ancient rights of other metropolitans and to report anything amiss in Gaul or Spain to Rome. After the defeat of the party of Laurentius at Rome and the final settlement of Symmachus in the see, the emperor Anastasius, to whom the result would be peculiarly unwelcome, issued a manifesto against Symmachus, reproaching him with having been unlawfully elected, accusing him of Manichean heresy, and protesting against his presumption in having (as he said) excommunicated an emperor. Symmachus replied in a letter entitled "Apologetica adversus Anastasii imperatoris libellum famosum," and in strong and indignant language rebutted the charges against himself, and retorted that of heresy on the emperor; he accuses him of presuming on his temporal position to think to trample on St. Peter in the person of his vicar, and reminds him that spiritual dignity is, at least, on a par with that of an emperor; and he protests strongly against the violence used against the orthodox in the East. Anastasius was by no means awed or deterred by these papal fulminations, which had probably the opposite effect. He appears after this more than even determined to support Eutychianism. Some time during the episcopate of Symmachus Theodoric visited Rome. Cassiodorus gives an account of the visit, placing it under the consuls of a.d. 500; and that Theodoric remained at Ravenna while the case against the pope was pending may be gathered from the documents that refer to it. Himself an Arian, Theodoric evidently had no desire to intervene personally in the disputes of the Catholics, declaring it his sole desire that they should agree among themselves and order be restored at Rome. Symmachus is said by Anastasius (Lib. Pontif. ) to have built, restored, and enriched with ornaments many Roman churches, to have spent money in redeeming captives, to have furnished yearly money and clothing to exiled orthodox bishops, and to have ordered the "Gloria in excelsis" to be sung on all Sundays and Saints' days. ^[2]

Telesphorus (2) , bp. of Rome, accounted the 7th from the apostles. According to Eusebius H. E. iv. 5) he succeeded Xystus in the 12th year of Hadrian (a.d. 128), and suffered martyrdom in the 11th year of his episcopate and the 1st of the reign of Antoninus Pius (iv. 10). Lipsius ( Chron. der röm. Bischöf. ) considers his earliest probable dates to have been 124 to 135 or 126 to 137 as the latest. If so, Eusebius erred in placing his martyrdom in the reign of Antoninus Pius instead of Hadrian. For the fact of his martyrdom he alleges the authority of Irenaeus; the assertion of the date is his own. Telesphorus is remarkable as being the only one of the early Roman bishops, afterwards accounted martyrs, who appears on the early authority of Irenaeus as such (Iren. Haer. iii.; cf. Eus. l.c. ). ^[1]

Urbanus (1) , bp. of Rome under the emperor Alexander Severus, from 223 (or 222) to 230. The Liberian Catalogue gives 8 years 11 months and 11 days as the length of his episcopate. Nothing certain is known of his life. The Acta S. Urbani cannot be relied on. The discovery by De Rossi in the papal crypt of the cemetery of St. Callistus of a broken stone (apparently once the mensa of an altar-tomb), bearing the imperfect inscription OVRBANOC E . . . has raised an interest in the question of his burial-place and alleged connexion with St. Caecilia. Lipsius inclines to the view that the Urban of the papal crypt was some other Urban, not necessarily a bishop, since the letter E after his name might have begun some other expression than ἐπίσκοπος , e.g. ἐν εἰρήνῃ . De Rossi, however, thinks that the slab in the papal crypt must have been that of the pope, who was actually buried there; and he attributes the contrary tradition to a confusion between him and the earlier Urban, whom he supposes to have been contemporary with St. Caecilia and buried in the cemetery of Praetextatus. ^[1]

Victor (1), bp. of Rome after Eleutherus, in the reigns of Commodus and Severus. The Eusebian Chronicle assigns him 12 years, ending 198 or 199; Eusebius ( H. E. v. 28) 10 years, and says that Zephyrinus succeeded him about the 9th year of Severus, i.e. a.d. 202. Lipsius ( Chron. der röm. Bischöf. ) supposes his episcopate to have been from 189 to 198 or 199. Soon probably after his accession he excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium (ὁ σκυτεύς ), who had come to Rome, and taught that Christ was as mere man (Eus. H. E. v. 28; cf. Epiphan. Haeres. liv. 1). Eusebius is quoting from an opponent of the sect of Artemon, who afterwards under pope Zephyrinus maintained a similar heresy. It appears from the quotation that the Artemonites alleged all the bps. of Rome before Zephyrinus to have held the same views with themselves, and the allegation is refuted by the fact of Victor, the predecessor of Zephyrinus, having excommunicated Theodotus, "the founder and father of the God-denying apostasy." Montanism also was rife in Asia Minor during the reign of Victor, who is supposed by some to have been the bp. of Rome alluded to by Tertullian ( adv. Prax. c. 1) as having issued letters of peace in favour of its upholders, though afterwards persuaded by Praxeas to revoke his approval. But others think it more probable that Eleutherus was referred to. See, however, MONTANUS. Victor's most memorable action was with regard to the Asians on the Easter question. They still persisted in the Quartodeciman usage, pleading the authority of St John for keeping their Pasch on the 14th of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it fell. So far intercommunion between them and the church of Rome had not been broken on this account. In the time of Victor the usage of the Asians (in which, according to Eusebius, they stood alone among all the churches of Christendom) attracted general attention. Synods were held on the subject in various parts—in Palestine under Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem, in Pontus under Palmas, in Gaul under Irenaeus, in Corinth under its bishop, Bachillus, at Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, and elsewhere, by all of which synodical letters were issued, unanimous in disapproval of the Asian custom, and in declaring that "on the Lord's Day only the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead was accomplished, and that on that day only we keep the close of the paschal fast" (Eus. H. E. v. 23). But the general feeling was that the retention of their own tradition by the Asians was no sufficient ground for breaking off communion with them. Victor alone was intolerant of difference. He had issued a letter in behalf of the Roman church to the like effect with those of the synods held elsewhere. From a reply to it we may conclude it to have been peremptory in its requirement of compliance. This reply was from Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, as head of the Asian churches, who, at Victor's desire, had convened an assembly of bishops which concurred with Polycrates in his rejoinder. He resolutely upholds the Asian tradition, supporting it by the authority of Philip the apostle, who, with his two aged virgin daughters, was buried at Hierapolis; of another saintly daughter of his who lay at Ephesus; of St. John, also at rest at Ephesus; of Polycarp of Smyrna, bishop and martyr; of Thraseas of Eumenia, also bishop and martyr, who slept at Smyrna. After naming others who had kept the 14th day according to the Gospel, he speaks of seven of his own kinsmen, all bishops, who had maintained the same usage. He adds, "I therefore, having been for 65 years in the Lord, and having conferred with the brethren from the whole world, and having perused all the Holy Scripture, am not scared with those who are panic-stricken. For those who are greater than I have said, 'It is right to obey God rather than men.'" After receiving this reply Victor endeavoured to induce the church at large to excommunicate the Asians, but failed. Whether he himself, notwithstanding, renounced communion with them on the part of the Roman church is not clear from the language of Eusebius. Socrates ( H. E. v. 22) says he did; and this is probable. Jerome ( de Vir. Ill. c. 35) speaks only of his desire to have them generally condemned. Evidently the judgment of the bp. of Rome did not in that age carry any irresistible weight with other churches, for Eusebius expressly tells us that "these things did not please all the bishops," and that they wrote "sharply assailing Victor." He cites a letter sent on the occasion to Victor by Irenaeus, who, though holding with him on the question at issue, exhorted him in the name of a synod of the church of Gaul "that he should not cut off whole churches of God for preserving the tradition of an ancient custom." Lastly, he cites "the elders before Soter," chiefs of the Roman church, who had been at peace with those from other dioceses differing from them in the matter at issue; and especially Anicetus, who, though unable to persuade the blessed Polycarp to give up the custom which, "with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom John lived," he had always observed, and though himself not persuaded to renounce the custom of the elders in his own church, had still honourably accorded the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, and parted from him in peace (Eus. H. E. v. 24). Jerome ( u.s. ) alludes to several letters written by Irenaeus to the same purpose. The Quartodecimans seem to have maintained their usage till the council of Nicaea, which enjoined its discontinuance. The intolerance of Victor evidently neither won general approval nor effected his intended purpose. Victor is mentioned by St. Jerome (op. cit. c. 34) as a writer of a treatise on the Easter question and other works. ^[1]

Vigilius (5), bp. of Rome, intruded into the see in the room of Silverius, a.d. 537, by Belisarius, by order of the empress Theodora. By birth a Roman of good position, he had accompanied AGAPETUS as one of his deacons when that pope went to Constantinople a.d. 536 and procured from Justinian the deposition of the Monophysite patriarch Anthimus, and the appointment of Mennas in his room. The Monophysite party (then called commonly the ACEPHALI), who continued to reject the council of Chalcedon, had a resolute supporter in the empress Theodora. Agapetus dying April, 536, when about to depart for Rome, she sent for Vigilius and promised him an order to Belisarius to get him ordained pope if he would secretly undertake to disallow the council of Chalcedon. Vigilius (says Liberatus) willingly complied, and proceeded to Rome, but found SILVERIUS already ordained. Vigilius having been thus ordained in 537 (on Nov. 22, according to the conclusion of Pagi; on Mar 25, according to that of Mansi), and the death of Silverius having been certainly not earlier than June 20, 538, for at least seven months his position was that of an unlawful antipope, his predecessor never having been canonically deposed. However, as pope he was accepted, the deposition of bishops and the ordination of others in their room under imperial dictation being at that time, however irregular, common enough elsewhere; and the ancients seem to have dated his episcopate from his intrusion. Through Antonina, the wife of Belisarius and the real agent of the empress throughout, Vigilius sent without delay letters to Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus, in fulfilment of his secret promise, expressing his entire agreement with them in matters of faith, but charging them to keep his avowal in the dark, that he might more easily accomplish what he had undertaken. He added a confession of his own faith, condemning the Tome of pope Leo (in which the orthodox doctrine of two Natures in Christ was enunciated), and anathematizing Paul of Samosata, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and all who agreed with them. Binius and Baronius, jealous for the credit of the Roman see, argue that this letter was forged by the Monophysite party. But no valid ground has been adduced for suspecting it. It is given by Liberatus and Victor Tununensis; and Facundus (c. Mocianum ), like them a contemporary, seemingly alludes to it. Pagi (Baron. ad ann. 538) refutes all the arguments of Baronius, while alleging that the Roman see was not compromised, since Vigilius was not the true pope when he wrote. Justinian was evidently kept in the dark about these secret proceedings, since, after the death of Silverius, he wrote to Vigilius, sending a confession of his own faith and recognizing him as pope without any suspicion of his orthodoxy. In his reply, dated 540, Vigilius declares himself altogether orthodox, accepts the Tome of Leo and the council of Chalcedon, and condemns by name all abettors of the Eutychian heresy. In 541 began at Constantinople the new theological disputes which led to the 2nd council of Constantinople (called the 5th oecumenical), in the course of which Vigilius came in conflict with the emperor. Peter, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who was opposed to the Origenists, sent two abbats to Constantinople, with a letter to the emperor, and extracts from Origen's writings, complaining of the commotions excited by the Origenistic party and praying for their condemnation (Vit. S. Sabae ). The emperor, readily acceding, issued a long edict, addressed to the patriarch Mennas, setting forth and confuting the heresies attributed to Origen; commanding the patriarch to assemble the bishops and abbats then at Constantinople for the purpose of anathematizing him, his doctrine, and his followers, and to suffer no bishop or abbat to be thenceforth appointed except on condition of doing the same. There seems to have been no resistance to this imperial command. Justinian was engaged, we are told, after his condemnation of Origen, in composing a treatise on the Incarnation in defence of the council of Chalcedon and in refutation of the Eutychians. But there were two Origenistic abbats from Palestine, resident at his court, in great credit with him, Theodore of Ascidas and Domitian, who suggested that he might better serve the cause of orthodoxy by procuring a condemnation of certain writers accused of Nestorianism but acquitted by the council of Chalcedon, viz. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas, the alleged author of a letter to Maris. It was represented to the emperor that, if these were now authoritatively condemned and the council of Chalcedon freed from the imputation of having approved their errors, the Acephali would no longer refuse to accept that council. The emperor, who warmly desired this reconciliation, readily fell into the snare. The writings thus prepared for condemnation are known as the "Three Chapters" ("Tria Capitula"). The imperial edict against them (περὶ τριῶν κεφαλίαων ), issued probably c. 544, anathematized their deceased authors and all defenders of them, with a saving clause to guard against any inculpation of the council of Chalcedon. But the edict was regarded as disparaging its authority. Mennas, at first refusing, at length gave his acquiescence in writing. The three other patriarchs of the East also yielded to threats of deposition, as did the rest of the Eastern bishops, except a few who were deposed and banished. In the West, less accustomed to imperial despotism, there was more difficulty. Vigilius, from his antecedents, might have been expected to obey, but shewed considerable independence of spirit, being probably influenced by the prevailing feeling at Rome and in the West generally. He refused his assent to the emperor's edict, and being thereupon summoned peremptorily to Constantinople, unwillingly obeyed. He sailed first to Sicily, where he was joined by Datius, bp. of Milan, a resolute opponent of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Arrived at Constantinople (a.d. 547), he persevered for a time in the same attitude, but before long gave a secret promise to condemn the Chapters (Facund. c. Moc. ), and presided over a synod with the hope of inducing it to do what the emperor required. Meeting opposition there, especially from bp. Facundus of Ermiana, who requested leave to argue the question (Facundus himself tells the story), he suspended the proceedings, requiring the bishops separately to send him their opinions in writing. Seventy bishops were thus induced to declare for the condemnation of the Chapters, including many who had previously refused. Vigilius, supported by these 70 signatories, issued the document known as his Judicatum , addressed to Mennas, on Easter Eve, 548 (Ep. Vigilii, ad Rustianum et Sebastianum ), condemning the Chapters, though disavowing any disparagement of Chalcedon. The Judicatum provoked serious opposition. At Constantinople Facundus continued resolute, protesting against bishops who betrayed their trust to win favour with princes. Vigilius's own deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus, declared against him, but were deposed and excommunicated. The bishops of Illyricum condemned the Judicatum in synod; those of N. Africa did the same, and even formally excommunicated Vigilius (Vict. Tunun. ad ann. 549, 550). Alarmed by these consequences, Vigilius now recalled his Judicatum , and seems to have represented to the Westerns that he had issued it unwillingly. Facundus attributes his whole action to desire of court favour and position, as his earlier secret promise to Theodora had been due to ambition. Vigilius could not now undo what he had done, for the Judicatum was known far and wide. If any further proof were needed of his double dealing we should have a signal one in the fact (if it be one) that, even while thus trying to persuade the Westerns that he was on their side, he was induced by the emperor to take a secret oath before him to do all he could to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters. The oath, dated the 23rd year of Justinian, is given among the Acts of the 7th session of the 5th council (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 194). There seems to be no sufficient reason to doubt its genuineness. In it he swore to unite with the emperor to the utmost of his power to cause the Chapters to be condemned and anathematized, and to take no measures or counsels with any one in their favour against the emperor's will. The result of his crooked policy was that neither party trusted him. In the year in which the Judicatum was issued Theodora died; but the emperor continued resolute in carrying out his project for the condemnation of the Three Chapters by full ecclesiastical authority. Vigilius, hampered by the repudiation of his Judicatum in the West and by his own secret understanding with the emperor, would gladly have left the scene of action. But his presence was still required at Constantinople by the emperor. The plan he now adopted was to persuade the emperor to summon the bishops, both of the East and West (including especially those of Africa and Illyricum who had shewn themselves so strongly opposed to the Judicatum ), to a council at Constantinople, and meanwhile to take no further steps. Justinian acted on his advice; but though the obsequious Easterns obeyed the summons, very few of the Westerns came—a small number from Italy, two from Illyricum, but none from Africa. Justinian would have had Vigilius proceed at once with such bishops as were in Constantinople. Vigilius, with considerable spirit, refused. Thereupon the emperor issued a new edict against the Chapters, which he caused to be posted in the churches. Vigilius protested against this as a violation of their agreement, called an assembly of bishops in the palace of Placidia where he lodged, conjured them to use their efforts to procure a revocation of the edict till the episcopate of the West should have an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion, and in virtue of the authority of the apostolic see declared all excommunicated who should meanwhile sign or receive it. Justinian sent the praetor whose office it was to apprehend common malefactors, with an armed band, to seize the pope in his place of refuge. Vigilius escaped to Chalcedon, and there sought sanctuary in the church of St. Euphemia two days before Christmas, 551. No attempt was made to violate this sanctuary. The pope was able from it to dictate terms on which he would take part in the forthcoming council. The emperor, anxious to secure his concurrence at the council, at length acceded to his conditions, and revoked the edict. Vigilius returned to Constantinople towards the end of 552, after nearly a year in St. Euphemia. Justinian summoned the council to meet on May 5, 553. The Easterns met, in number 165, under the presidency of Eutychius, who had succeeded on the death of Mennas. Vigilius and the Westerns kept aloof, assembling by themselves in the Placidian palace, and prepared a very lengthy document, known as his Constitutum ad Imperatoren , addressed to the emperor. It refutes extracts that had been made from the works of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and condemns the views expressed as heretical, but proceeds to protest against the condemnation of Theodorus himself as a heretic after his death, since he had not been so condemned when alive and had died in communion with the church; and also against any such condemnation of Theodoret or of the letter of Ibas, both having been acquitted of heresy by the council of Chalcedon. This Constitutum , dated May 14, 553, was signed also by 16 Western bishops. It does not appear that the emperor transmitted it to the council; but he handed in, on May 26, a statement of how Vigilius had once himself condemned the Chapters, had pledged himself to do so by word, writing, and solemn oath, and had been invited to the council and refused to come. Anathemas were pronounced against Theodorus of Mopsuestia and his writings, against the inculpated writings, but not the persons, of Theodoret and Ibas; and all who should continue to defend the condemned writings were, if ecclesiastics, to be deprived, if monks or laymen, excommunicated. Vigilius soon changed sides once more, assenting to the decrees of the council, and thus giving them at length the sanction of the Roman see. That he did this is indisputable, and according to Evagrius (lib. iv. c. 34) in writing, ἐγγράφως ; nor does there seem valid reason to doubt the genuineness of the two written documents in which his recantation is declared. The first of these is a letter to the patriarch Eutychius, dated Dec. 8, 553, i.e. six months after the conclusion of the council. The other document (dated Feb. 23, 554) is entitled "Constitutum Vigilii pro damnatione Trium Capitulorum" (given in Labbe, vol. vi. p. 239). It expresses entire agreement with the decisions of the council, and ends with the same declaration, word for word, as the letter to Eutychius. Justinian, having thus attained his end, Vigilius was allowed to leave Constantinople for Rome, after a compelled absence of 7 years, the emperor giving him certain grants, privileges, and exemptions for the people of Rome and Italy (Baron. ad ann. 554, ix. x. xi. xii.). But he died on his way at Syracuse towards the end of 554 or early in 555. His body was conveyed to Rome and buried in the church of St. Marcellus on the Salarian Way. He was evidently a man with no firmness of character or principle. The attempts of Baronius to vindicate his conduct after he had become lawful pope, though allowing him to have been a poor creature before, are pitiably unavailing. To his final submission to Justinian's will is due the important fact that the Fifth council, the origin, purpose, and conduct of which had so little to commend them, came at last to be universally accepted, in the West as well as the East, though not without prolonged resistance in some parts of the West, as oecumenical and authoritative. For, though its anathemas against the dead and their writings were passed under imperial dictation in defiance of the pope and of the Western church, Vigilius's eventual approval of them was endorsed by his successors. There is no lack of contemporary authority for the history given above—viz. the Breviarium of Liberatus, archdeacon of Carthage; the Eccl. Hist. of Evagrius; the Chronicon of Victor, bp. of Tununum; the Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum , and the Liber contra Mocianum of Facundus, bp. of Ermiana; and the Hist. Bell. Goth. and the Anecdota , or Hist. Arcana , of Procopius. The writings of Facundus are peculiarly valuable in giving an insight into the state of parties, and the course of events in which he was himself implicated, having been, with Victor Tununensis, a prominent opponent at Constantinople of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. We have also the letters written by Vigilius, of great historical value, and the Acts of the Fifth council, with contemporary documents preserved among them. ^[1]